What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

romans 9 study

The night is far spent...

And we know that Israel is blinded in part only until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.. and then shall the Deliverer come from Sion and turn unglodliness from JACOB... who became Israel after wrestling with God all night.. and Paul tells us that the night is far spent and that the DAY is at hand.. and that it will come upon the whole world as travail upon a woman with child..
 
Re: The night is far spent...

Eventide said:
And we know that Israel is blinded in part only until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.. and then shall the Deliverer come from Sion and turn unglodliness from JACOB... who became Israel after wrestling with God all night.. and Paul tells us that the night is far spent and that the DAY is at hand.. and that it will come upon the whole world as travail upon a woman with child..
Click to expand...
We may have some disagreement in respect to what will happen to Israel, but we do appear to agree that Israel was blinded specifically so that the Gentiles can be "ingrafted" into the family of God. This is where context takes us, certainly not in the direction of a theology of personal election that has no Israel specificity whatsoever.
 
Re: The night is far spent...

Drew said:
We may have some disagreement in respect to what will happen to Israel, but we do appear to agree that Israel was blinded specifically so that the Gentiles can be "ingrafted" into the family of God. This is where context takes us, certainly not in the direction of a theology of personal election that has no Israel specificity whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced that Romans 9 has nothing to do with personal election and it's pretty sad to see so many base their entire theology upon this one portion of scripture..

If you believe that the church of God is Israel, as many do in Chrstendom, then yes, we certainly disagree there.
 
even:

And we know that Israel is blinded in part only until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in
Click to expand...

Correction, it does not say only until the fulness of the gentiles be come in..

It reads :

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

That is National Israel was not totally blinded, for yet in Her were some that belonged to the election of grace [ vs 5], and they along with the election of the nations or gentiles shall be how all Israel shall be saved.

So at the fulness of the Gentiles having been brought in, and the elect jews with them, that will be the end, all Israel will be saved by that means..
 
savedbygrace57 said:
even:



Correction, it does not say only until the fulness of the gentiles be come in..

It reads :

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

That is National Israel was not totally blinded, for yet in Her were some that belonged to the election of grace [ vs 5], and they along with the election of the nations or gentiles shall be how all Israel shall be saved.

So at the fulness of the Gentiles having been brought in, and the elect jews with them, that will be the end, all Israel will be saved by that means..
Click to expand...

Well that's certainly the 'amillennial' pov.. no doubt about that.. heard it a million times and I think that it's way off the mark as far as the nation of Israel is concerned... they're enemies as pertaining to the gospel and yet beloved for the sake of the fathers.. and then again, the deliverer shall come from Sion and turn ungodliness from JACOB.. in that Day.. the Day of the Lord, the Day of Jesus Christ.
 
Drew said:
I suggest that this text does not specifically support the assertion that God elects some to eternal salvation and others to eternal loss. It could, of course, be read that way in isolation.
Click to expand...

It gives the example of an individual predestined to destruction: Pharaoh. Your point is proven false.
 
RoadDebris said:
It gives the example of an individual predestined to destruction: Pharaoh. Your point is proven false.
Click to expand...
No.

Let's return to Pharoah. Given this statement from God;

I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here. It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.
 
Drew said:
No.

Let's return to Pharoah. Given this statement from God;

I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here. It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.
Click to expand...

True.

The problem is that certain theologies have a tendency to equate "elect" with "eternal destiny", when clearly, that is not the case. Thus, to them, predestination is convoluted into fate...

Regards
 
rd

It gives the example of an individual predestined to destruction:
Click to expand...

Correct, he was an example of those who are vessels of wrath being fitted for destruction. Paul was showing that many of the ethnic jews of national Israel were vessels being fitted for destruction and thats one of the reasons why not to think all jews are God's chosen Israel. But it does not merely apply to jews alone who are being fitted for destruction, as much as it did not mean gentiles only were vessels of mercy prepared afore time for Glory, but its of both jew and gentile ROM 9:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


You see, that proves that Jews were not the primary subject of being made vessels of wrath, as some falsely proclaim, and neither were gentiles.
 
Duh... and I thought that Paul taught that ALL MEN in Adam according to the flesh were under condemnation and vessels fit for destruction...

Go figure..
 
savedbygrace57 said:
Correct, he was an example of those who are vessels of wrath being fitted for destruction. Paul was showing that many of the ethnic jews of national Israel were vessels being fitted for destruction.....
Click to expand...
If you are right, you need to deal with the specifics of the argument presented in post 347.
 
event:

Duh... and I thought that Paul taught that ALL MEN in Adam according to the flesh were under condemnation and vessels fit for destruction
Click to expand...

No He didn't, thats all in your imagination. He Just taught that some were vessels of mercy, prepared afore for Glory..These vessels of mercy are just as sinful as the vessels of wrath..

And the vessels of mercy, though sinful, are never under God's condemnation. Christ bore their condemnation legally upon the cross..
 
savedbygrace57 said:
event:



No He didn't, thats all in your imagination. He Just taught that some were vessels of mercy, prepared afore for Glory..These vessels of mercy are just as sinful as the vessels of wrath..

And the vessels of mercy, though sinful, are never under God's condemnation. Christ bore their condemnation legally upon the cross..
Click to expand...

So let's see.. that would make you right and Romans 5:18 wrong.. ? ? ?

Is that what you actually believe ?
 
francisdesales said:
True.

The problem is that certain theologies have a tendency to equate "elect" with "eternal destiny", when clearly, that is not the case. Thus, to them, predestination is convoluted into fate...

Regards
Click to expand...
Indeed. And one of the tell-tale signs that the standard "Calvinist" take on this passage is wrong is that those who support such a take simply do not honour the many Old Testament allusions that Paul makes to God making choices other than choices about the eternal destinies of people.

In Romans 9, Paul repeatedly alludes to choices from the Old Testament that had to do with "this world" - Esau serving Jacob, Pharoah resisting the exodus. Yet the Calvinist ignores these and trumps Paul's intended meaning.

Again, who is driving the bus here - Paul, or the Calvinist? We know where Paul wants us to go - he repeatedly sends us to the Old Testament in all his examples of "God's election". And without fail, each example deals with an "election" to something other than an eternal fate.
 
savedbygrace57 said:
event:



No He didn't, thats all in your imagination. He Just taught that some were vessels of mercy, prepared afore for Glory..These vessels of mercy are just as sinful as the vessels of wrath..

And the vessels of mercy, though sinful, are never under God's condemnation. Christ bore their condemnation legally upon the cross..
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Another one who doesn't believe Romans 5:18...

I learned another thing about Calvinism today... they don't believe Romans 5:18..
 
Eventide said:
Another one who doesn't believe Romans 5:18...

I learned another thing about Calvinism today... they don't believe Romans 5:18..
Click to expand...

Straw man (again). I believe in it, just not your poor interpretation o fit. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that all mean are not going to be saved.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. - Mat. 7:13
 
RoadDebris said:
Straw man (again). I believe in it, just not your poor interpretation o fit. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that all mean are not going to be saved.
Click to expand...

Well, please feel free to tell us your highly superior interpretation of it.. and I didn't yet give an interpretation.. so how could you know it's poor ?

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. - Mat. 7:13
Click to expand...

OK, so will you give us your interpretation of Rom 5:18 now ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top