romans 9 study

[Eventide]

Romans 5:18 and other verses of scripture prove that all in Adam are condemned (FLESH) and that each and every one can be justified freely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (born of the SPIRIT)..

 

[Eventide]

FLESH gives birth to the FLESH

SPIRIT gives birth to the SPIRIT

It's that simple.. and God has chosen the latter.. because it's the SPIRIT of His Son which is justified in every believer.. even within the same lump of clay.

 

[Drew]

Gods sixfold Testimony in rom 9 -



In romans 9 God gives us a sixfold testimony of His Sovereignty over who receives His Salvation !

1st Isaac and Ishmael rom 9:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

God determined who was the child of promise, heir of salvation.

You beg the question - assuming that the issue here is salvation.

All we can legitimately conclude from this text is that Paul is re-articulating the well-known belief that it is the descendents of Isaac who are considered to comprise the nation of Israel.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Many who object to the biblical teaching of Election and Reprobation as presented in romans 9, like to distort things and say that Salvation is not the issue, OH but it is, and that is plainly seen in rom 9:

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

For paul is rectifying who the True Children of God are, hence, what else could this be but about Salvation ?

 

[Drew]

Many who object to the biblical teaching of Election and Reprobation as presented in romans 9, like to distort things and say that Salvation is not the issue, OH but it is, and that is plainly seen in rom 9:

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

For paul is rectifying who the True Children of God are, hence, what else could this be but about Salvation ?

The issue is indeed salvation, but you need to make a further case that Paul is saying here, or anywhere for that matter, that those who are ultimately saved are pre-destined to that state.

Now you may not have expressed this view here, but the "pre-destination" doctrine is clearly your major interest. And I see no evidence from Romans 9 (or anywhere else) for that matter that individuals are pre-destined to salvation.

There is indeed "pre-destination" in Romans 9, but it is about God "pre-destining" a particular role for the nation of Israel in relation to the Gentiles and their ultimate salvation.

It is a "nations" arguments, not an argument at the level of individuals.

 

[savedbygrace57]

God is Sovereign in who He shows Mercy !



Rom 9:


14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it [Salvation] is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Salvation or being saved is by the Mercy of God Titus 3:

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Eph 2:

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

Gods saving, and quickening Mercy is shown according to Gods Sovereignty, not because one willeth.

That word willeth is the greek word:

thelō and means:

to will, have in mind, intend

a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d) to take delight in, have pleasure

Mercy Paul says is not shown an individual because they desire it, or have in mind, being resolved, none of those things in a Mans Mind is the cause of God showing them saving Mercy.

Its not of Him [ Individual] that runneth ! The word runneth is the greek word:

trechō: and means:

by a metaphor taken from runners in a race, to exert one's self, strive hard

c) to spend one's strength in performing or attaining something

Mercy is not shown to any because they exert themselves for it, if they strive for it as in :


lk 13:24

Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Yes, Gods mercy unto Eternal Life [ Jude 1:21] is not because we strive to enter in into it.

But this Saving Mercy is shown to whomever God wants to receive it, according to His own will and Purpose, and not the will of men.

This is the biblical teaching on Gods Saving Mercy, see How Paul Preached it ?

 

[Drew]

God is Sovereign in who He shows Mercy !



Rom 9:


14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it [Salvation] is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

You are adding your own word here!

The word "salvation" does not appear in verse 16.

 

[savedbygrace57]

It should be clear that the word it as in Rom 9:

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy

it regards salvation. I know it is denied by those who fail to receive the Truth of God's Sovereignty in Salvation and Reprobation [Rejection].

They want to make things as it pertains to nations, and not the salvation of individuals. This ideal of this being a matter of nations and not individuals is disproved by the text.

The Apostle Paul is not writing about nations but salvation, the whole theme of the letter is grounded in salvation Rom 1:15-16, but he is writing to those of the same nation, to ethnic jews. The words:

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

lifted out of the context of Ex 33:19, where God is making a distinction between those of the same nation, so persons and not nations are differentiated by the mercy of God, and so it is applied in the same sense in vs 16. The meaning is, it is not of any individual, or will of a person, or run [effort] of a person, but of God that showeth mercy to attain salvation. Titus 3:

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Eternal Salvation is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth Mercy.

​

 

[cyberjosh]

Some argue that the following text from Romans 9 shows that Paul is focused on the matter of election of individuals to an eternal fate:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

The argument runs along these lines: Since Paul is referring to individuals, he intends the reader to understand that the issue is the election of individuals.

Note that in the phrase "you will say to me then, Why does he still find fault", the "me" is Paul, the person making the argument. So the “me” pronoun would be singular even if Paul were making an argument about groups. The singularity of the “me” pronoun does not, therefore, tell us anything of relevance.

Now consider the “you” in this phrase. Is this a person who is protesting his pre-destination to loss? No it is not. It is instead Paul’s imaginary opponent in his debate – the person objecting to Paul’s point about the choices God makes. It cannot be assumed to be the person protesting his own pre-destination. It could be such a person, but it could equally well be a person who disputes a point that Paul is making about pre-destination of groups.

I grant that, in verse 20, Paul appeals to a singular model where Paul invites us to imagine a single person challenging God in respect to what has befallen him. This man is no longer Paul’s imagined opponent, but clearly one who God has pre-destined to something bad.

However, this does not make the case that Paul is talking about election of individuals. We know that he uses the singular to represent plurality in other contexts. In Romans 7, he does this very thing when he use the "I" and "me" construct to demonstrate the plight of Jews (plural) under Torah. So, the use of the singular here in the “o man” / “me” of Romans 9 is not definitive.

I suggest that Paul uses the "O man" construct as a literary device to "personalize" the objection that corporate Israel will have to its treatment. Note how this is consonant with the Israel focus suggested by the first verses of the chapter. In order to make his point accessible to the reader, Paul "puts a face" on corporate Israel by representing her by a single man, just as in Romans 7 where the “I” represents Israel as a whole.

Note also the reference to moulding and the potter and recall that Old Testament precedent repeatedly has God moulding Israel. Paul is keenly aware of this and is leveraging that precedent.

Besides, consider this allusion, from earlier in the same basic argument:

15For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

Paul is quoting Exodus where the issue is God's showing mercy unto the Israelites as a group. If predestination of individuals is on Paul’s mind, why does he bring up an example of God being merciful to a group to make a point about election of individuals?

Furthermore, there is "group-level" election in the Jacob / Esau account where the Old Testament references make it clear that the election in view involves the Edomites (a group) being chosen by God to be sub-servient to the Israelites (another group).

Furthermore, consider the Isaiah 29text that Paul quotes from in verse 20:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

This is the very text from which the "o man" text is drawn – and clearly a pluralistic reading is intended

Hi Drew,

I was looking back for any posts that mention corporate election and stumbled on this post. Overall (not just concerning this text), do you believe in corporate election or individual election, or something in between? Also, for my benefit, would you describe yourself as more Arminian leaning or Calvinistic, or if you prefer do you believe in eternal security or that apostasy is possible?

There is a book I heard of recently called Elect in the Son by Robert Shank that deals with election from an Arminian perspective and I think argues for corporate election. He has written another book called Life in the Son which aims to refute the doctrine of eternal security. Then I read a book review here of Norman Sellers' book Election and Perseverance which was written to rebut Shank's position by arguing for individual election, but (as the reviewer points out) Sellers in the process also dubiously tries to make the various warnings not to fall away of no effect. Anyway, I would like to know your view on election, and also whether you are more Arminian, Calvinist, or "other" in outlook. I think the Reformed perspective also believes in individual election if I am not mistaken.

Thanks,
Josh

 

[Drew]

I was looking back for any posts that mention corporate election and stumbled on this post. Overall (not just concerning this text), do you believe in corporate election or individual election, or something in between?

I believe the following in regard to the matter of election, bearing in mind that the term "election" denotes "choice" and in and of itself the term does not, I believe, denote choice unto an eternal destiny:

1. No specific human individuals are "elected" to an eternal fate;

2. No "groups" of people are "elected" to an eternal fate (this follows necessarily from item (1);

3. The term "election" very often refers to God's "choice" to use Israel as a nation as the means redressing the problem of sin and death;

4. Paul tells us, especially in Romans 9 to 11, that, strangely, God has also elected the nation of Israel to be the place where the evil of the world is concentrated prior to its being dealt with on the cross by Jesus.

I am not sure whether this fully answers your question. Please advise if not. I like to suggest the following to people in general: please do not assume that all references to God making choices about people are choices about 'where they go when they die'. I suggest that all the examples in the first 16 or so verses of Romans 9 are choices by God that have nothing to do with "heaven or hell".

Also, for my benefit, would you describe yourself as more Arminian leaning or Calvinistic, or if you prefer do you believe in eternal security or that apostasy is possible?

I would describe myself as Arminian in respect to the matter of the eternal destiny of human beings. I also believe it is possible to "lose your salvation".

 

[cyberjosh]

I believe the following in regard to the matter of election, bearing in mind that the term "election" denotes "choice" and in and of itself the term does not, I believe, denote choice unto an eternal destiny:

1. No specific human individuals are "elected" to an eternal fate;

2. No "groups" of people are "elected" to an eternal fate (this follows necessarily from item (1);

3. The term "election" very often refers to God's "choice" to use Israel as a nation as the means redressing the problem of sin and death;

4. Paul tells us, especially in Romans 9 to 11, that, strangely, God has also elected the nation of Israel to be the place where the evil of the world is concentrated prior to its being dealt with on the cross by Jesus.

I am not sure whether this fully answers your question. Please advise if not. I like to suggest the following to people in general: please do not assume that all references to God making choices about people are choices about 'where they go when they die'. I suggest that all the examples in the first 16 or so verses of Romans 9 are choices by God that have nothing to do with "heaven or hell".


I would describe myself as Arminian in respect to the matter of the eternal destiny of human beings. I also believe it is possible to "lose your salvation".

Thank you Drew. I would also classify myself as more Arminian on the matter of salvation.

If I may though I wanted to ask a few more things about your view of election in light of what you said above.

Not only the words "elect" or "election" deal with this concept but also "predestined" and also (as you pointed out) "choose/choice/chose". What is your understanding of what Ephesians 1:4 means? "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him". This is speaking of something done or determined by God in eternity past. I would appreciate your thoughts on that.

Thanks,
~Josh

 

[Drew]

Not only the words "elect" or "election" deal with this concept but also "predestined" and also (as you pointed out) choose/choice/chose". What is your understanding of what Ephesians 1:4 means? "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him". This is speaking of something done or determined by God in eternity past. I would appreciate your thoughts on that.

Glad you asked about that text.

My present position is that Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) is not marking out believers in general in 1:4, he is instead identifying a small set of people who were pre-destined to found the church. I realize that this is probably an uncommon position, but I find the arguments for it to be quite compelling.

These arguments are not my own, and they are quite complex. However, a long time ago, I undertook the effort to try to provide my own expression of those arguments. However, I got distracted. Hopefully, I will return to it.

Perhaps you can appreciate how the "New Perspective on Paul" has shaped my thinking here. That movement, I believe, asserts that we need to read the texts in their specific cultural and historical context in order to understand them. On such a view, the words of Paul, or even Jesus for that matter, are not "timeless truths directed at future generations" but are organically connected to the "people and times" in which they were given. I hasten to add, however, that this does not mean that these teachings are not relevant to us. However, they need to be appropriately "transposed" into our context.

 

[cyberjosh]

Glad you asked about that text.

My present position is that Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) is not marking out believers in general in 1:4, he is instead identifying a small set of people who were pre-destined to found the church. I realize that this is probably an uncommon position, but I find the arguments for it to be quite compelling.

These arguments are not my own, and they are quite complex. However, a long time ago, I undertook the effort to try to provide my own expression of those arguments. However, I got distracted. Hopefully, I will return to it.

Perhaps you can appreciate how the "New Perspective on Paul" has shaped my thinking here. That movement, I believe, asserts that we need to read the texts in their specific cultural and historical context in order to understand them. On such a view, the words of Paul, or even Jesus for that matter, are not "timeless truths directed at future generations" but are organically connected to the "people and times" in which they were given. I hasten to add, however, that this does not mean that these teachings are not relevant to us. However, they need to be appropriately "transposed" into our context.

Interesting. I would be interested to look into that further. Are there any good articles you could link me to about that interpretation (I normally read books on such theological topics - but I have enough books as it is) or any previous posts you've made about this? I like seeing things in the context of debate as well because it can point out strengths and weaknesses in a particular stance. Anyway, whether you have any such resources you could point me to or not, thanks for answering my questions!

God Bless,
~Josh