romans 9 study

[beloved57]

I am going to change my mind with respect to the statement that all are called. I am going to say that you have to hear the gospel to be called.

correct, its a spiritual inward hearing to the regenerated rev 2:

7He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

This is not a physical ear in meaning, but a spiritual hearing, which none who are spiritually dead can have..

1. There is an exceedingly powerful case to the effect that the "vessels fitted for destruction" are not the "pre-destined lost", but rather the nation of Israel, at least that part of it that has rejected the gospel.

The vessels of wrath are all who are not called to be vessels of mercy, from the Jews and gentiles..

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?

 

[Drew]

1. There is an exceedingly powerful case to the effect that the "vessels fitted for destruction" are not the "pre-destined lost", but rather the nation of Israel, at least that part of it that has rejected the gospel.

2. Even though Paul does here write about vessels fitted for glory - and I grant that "ultimate salvation" is on the table here - there is no necessity whatsoever to see that this entails the predestination of specific individuals to ultimate salvation.

I am prepared to make a case for either of these two statements.

First, there is not even one decent argument, let alone a "powerful case" for your argument.

With respect to the first of my points: The reason why so many people do not see what Paul is really talking about here is that they fail to realize the Old Testament connections that he draws on, connections that strongly support the view that it is Israel who is in the hands of the potter, not the pre-destined lost:

Here are some texts demonstrating the Old Testament precedent of the potter metaphor. All of them are about the nation of Israel.

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 about the Jews - the nation of Israel.

This next text is from Isaiah 30. The NIV translators gave the title "Woe to the Obstinate Nation" to this chapter. Again, this is about Israel:

Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
"Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,

13 this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly

And this one from Jeremiah is particularly clear:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

The reader who thinks that Paul is talking about the pre-destined lost needs to answer this question: Why would Paul use the potter metaphor, used repeatedly in the Old Testament to denote God's treatment of Israel, to instead refer to the pre-destined lost when it would be most confusing - smack dab in the middle of an argument that we already know is about Israel?:

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

There are many more reasons to see the vessels of destruction are Israel. I will return to these in later posts.

 

[beloved57]

With respect to the first of my points: The reason why so many people do not see what Paul is really talking about here is that they fail to realize the Old Testament connections that he draws on, connections that strongly support the view that it is Israel who is in the hands of the potter, not the pre-destined lost:

All men are in the hands of the potter, fulfilling their predestined journey..God prepared some for Glory..

mk 10:

40But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

 

[Drew]

Further to the matter of who the "vessels fitted for destruction" are:

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Now look at this from Romans 11:12:

But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

In the Romans 11 text. "their" clearly refers to the unbelieving Jews (check the context).

Now I have been arguing that Paul intends us to understand that the unbelieving Jews are the vessels fitted for destruction. I suggest the Romans 11 text, rhetorically part of a single argument about Israel spanning chapters 9 to 11, strongly endorses this position. In Romans 11, we have the "transgression" of the unbelieving Jew meaning riches for the word. And in Romans 9, we have this exact same pattern: the vessels of destruction bring mercy and riches to "true Israel" (comprised of both Jew and Gentile).

Paul is not doing this by accident. Romans 9 and 11 are part of a single argument. So the "vessels fitted for destruction" must be unbelieving Jews. Otherwise the parallels between Romans 9 and 11 are a massive co-incidence.

If the vessels of destruction are the pre-destined lost, then Paul is a horribly misleading and incompetent writer. Why? Because Romans 11:12 clearly states that is the transgression of the unbelieving Jew that has brought salvation to the world - including the Gentiles. And in Romans 9, if the Calvinist is right, it is instead the "pre-destined lost" whose "molding" has brought glory to "true Israel".

How likely is that Paul would mislead us this way?

 

[mondar]

Jews (but their hearts are far from me. ) who think like God did not create them. The analogy of the pot merely relates that God is the creator of these individual Jews even thought they live like he cannot know their thoughts. You highlight the words "These people" at the beginning of the passage like that settles the question. The term These people cannot be talking about the entire nation of Israel because Israel always has a remnant that are believers. The passage is speaking only about unregenerate Jews.

After this quote you quote Isaiah 30. You seem to be saying that somehow Isaiah 30 also proves that Romans 9 is speaking about national Israel. Please excuse the spin, but I really do marvel that you think quoting these texts establishes your point. You point to a word in Isaiah and a word in Romans and do not look at how those words are being used, and the context and argument of each passages. You are not asking the question "is there a structural" or contextual connection. In Isaiah 30 the term "pottery" is referring to a mere sound of smashing pottery. The analogy is between the smashing pot, and the falling wall. The analogies relate to the sin of oppression that the rules of Israel used upon the innocent of the nation. The use of the term has absolutely nothing to do with covenants and promises being made to national Israel. Maybe you are just throwing in a few extra references to make it look good. Now your next reference is a better reference.

Now concerning your reference to Jeremiah 18. In that text there is a reference to the potter and the pot, and Israel. Your argument here is a small bit better because the reference to the pot is a reference to Israel. But notice the difference in the context between Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18. Where are the pots fitted to the grace and glory of God in Jeremiah? In the very next chapter in Jeremiah he uses another pottery analogy. In Chapter 19:11 the pot becomes the people and city of Jerusalem. Does this mean I can make a huge leap of logic and say that Romans 9 has to be the city of Jerusalem? No, that would be an unreasonable leap of logic, but that is exactly what you are doing.

Finally, you quote Romans 9:3-4a.
I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel
Again, I notice how you do not focus on the argument of the passage and the context, but individual words. Did you actually bother to notice that Paul was talking about salvation in verse 3? Now if when Paul uses the term Israel in verse 4, if he is speaking of national Israel, do you think he is saying that his damnation will cause Israel to inherit her ancestral land? Most likely he had the salvation of individual Israelites in mind.

I also notice your method of addressing the issue of Romans 9 with me. I presented some substantial positive evidence. I cannot help but feel you ignored all my positive evidence to make these leaps of logic that you make.

Drew, Romans 9:6 is the topic thought of the entire context. In my last post, I attempted to demonstrate how the context is related to the topic statement in Romans 9:6. Your only counter exegesis is your faulty reference to verse 3. You present next to no counter exegesis that my exegesis is wrong. I can see why you do this. You are focused upon individual words and not the rhetorics of the passage. I cannot give you ability to read entire sentences, and paragraphs rather then to look at a word on one context and a word in another context and then read your own idea's into each context. I am certainly not infallible, but I suggest we look closely at the rhetorical and contextual structure of Chapter 9 before drawing conclusions based upon a word here and a word there. To understand the context, we would have to begin with 9:6.

 

[Drew]

Drew, your last post in which you tried to answer about Romans 8 was so garbled, I am surprised to hear you talking like this. In your last post, I never saw so many "maybe...could be...possibilities" that ignored the subject of the discussion of the text.

I think the material is well written and carefully thought out. Sure its somewhat complex, vut such is the nature of the beast. Please address specific points. Where, specifically, has my argument gone astray? How, specifically, has my argument failed in establishing that Romans 8:28-30 does not require us to embrace pre-destination?

Concerning Romans 9---------
Certainly Paul talks about the subject of Israel in Romans 9. I dont know anyone who disagrees that Israel is at least a part of the discussion of Chapter 9. However, your argument assumes that if you show the word "Israel" in the context that you have proven your point. Such a shallow argument makes mammoth assumptions. You assume that there is no such thing as an individual Jewish person. To date you have never adequately related the people who are "of Israel" yet who are not Israel."

I am not making any "mammoth assumptions" here, I am simply following Paul. Chapter 9 begins and ends with national Israel:

Beginning:

1I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

Ending:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,

No one - least of all me - is denying the manifest fact that there exist individual Israelites. But the overall argument is rather clearly about "nations, races, and groups", not individuals.

Besides, the entire structure of Romans 9 and part of 10 follows the history of the nation of Israel in exactly the right sequence:

Abraham --> Isaac --> Jacob --> Moses --> Promises of Exile --> Promises of Covenant Renewal

Paul is writing about the national history of Israel and how God has used the nation of Israel to fulfill His covenant promises. Thus his conclusion in chapter 11 that the Jews have been hardened - think back to the potter metaphor of Chapter 9 - to bring salvation to the world.

If we see the potter metaphor as a treatment of the election of some to heaven and others to heall, we have Paul inserting a theological tangent that sits very uneasily with the general flow of his argument in these chapters, which is clearly focused on Israel.

And on the matter of the "Israel who are not Israel": Paul identifies a sub-set within genetic or national Israel. And later in the chapter the Gentiles are included in this group. So, for Paul, there are two Israels:

1. national Israel;
2. "true" Israel, constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

 

[mondar]

Drew, I just read over my previous posts and yours. I think I need more tools to express the teachings of Romans 9. I am not sure if I can import drawn pics into the texts spaces of not. Possible in the "Code" part above there is something.

 

[mondar]

Posts are sometimes going to fast. I am just now reading your last post.

 

[Drew]

The analogy of the pot merely relates that God is the creator of these individual Jews even thought they live like he cannot know their thoughts. You highlight the words "These people" at the beginning of the passage like that settles the question. The term These people cannot be talking about the entire nation of Israel because Israel always has a remnant that are believers. The passage is speaking only about unregenerate Jews.

I agree that the passage is only speaking about unregenerate Jews. I have been perhaps a little loose in my wording at times. So let me clarify: the vessels fitted for destruction are unregenerate Jews, not all Jews.

But the fact remains that there is a long history of Old Testament precedent of the potter metaphor being used specifically in relation to the nation of Israel. And the nation of Israel has substantially rejected her Messiah (although there is a remnant). The point about the Old Testament references about potters and pots is that they fit very logically and naturally into an argument about national Israel being hardened to destruction which is, if I am right, what Paul intends us to understand. And we from Romans 11 that the hardening of (the substantial part) of national Israeal is precisely what Paul has in mind.

Obviously, the vessels fitted for destruction could be the "pre-destined lost", but then Paul's use of the potter metaphor in particular would be deeply misleading. Why? Because Paul is clearly focused on Israel in chapter 9 in particular and more generally in chapters 9 through 11. The potter metaphor, steeped in its Old Testament use in relation to Israel, is the perfect literary allusion to make a point about Israel, since that is the history of its use.

If Paul wanted to make a point about God hardening (the substantial) part of the nation of Israel to bring salvation to the world, the potter metaphor is the ideal candidate. And this is not really an "if" - we know from Romans 11 that the issue of hardening of Israel is on Paul's mind. And that such hardening leads to salvation for the world. And yet you expect the reader to think that Paul is talking about "vessels of destruction" other than (the substantial) part of national Israel when he writes this:

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

How do you square this with Romans 11 where it is beyond dispute that Paul is making a point about national Israel being hardened for the sake of the world? I reconcile these by asserting that it is the same point - the hardened Jews are the vessels fitted for destruction.

 

[mondar]

...Snip...
No one - least of all me - is denying the manifest fact that there exist individual Israelites. But the overall argument is rather clearly about "nations, races, and groups", not individuals.I need to be careful here. Are you saying that there are individual Israelites within Chapter 9? I still kind of doubt you are saying that. You are just admitting to the existence of individual Israelites out there somewhere, but not in Chapter 9? This is the first I have heard you admit this. Lets stop here and work with it.... OK? Can you state how the context relates to individual Israelites? Maybe you still deny the existence of individual Israelites in Chapter 9? Are you able to articulate the relationship of national Israel and individual elect Israelites? Do you recognize that 9:6 is defining the Israelites to whom the promises belong? Do you say that Romans 9:6 is saying that the salvific and regeneration promises and covenants are binding upon the entire nation no matter if believers or unbelievers? Would you say that the new covenant does not contain promises of regeneration and salvation?

Besides, the entire structure of Romans 9 and part of 10 follows the history of the nation of Israel in exactly the right sequence:

Abraham --> Isaac --> Jacob --> Moses --> Promises of Exile --> Promises of Covenant Renewal

Drew, do you really think that because Paul makes his illustrations chronological that this is decisive evidence that the context cannot relate election to individual Israelites? This seems non-sequitur reasoning to me. If Paul were going to illustrate Romans 9:6 and show that individual Israelites are elect he would still put things in chronological order. So how then does your argument demonstrate anything?

Paul is writing about the national history of Israel and how God has used the nation of Israel to fulfill His covenant promises. Thus his conclusion in chapter 11 that the Jews have been hardened - think back to the potter metaphor of Chapter 9 - to bring salvation to the world.

As Paul developes his argument, by chapter 11 he is definitely speaking of aspects of national Israel. In Chapter 11 the nation is partially and temporarily rejected. Israel is only partially rejected because there is a remnant (vs 1-6), and is temporarily rejected "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (11:25).

The issues that Paul presents in Chapter 11 are not the same as the issues in Chapter 9. In Chapter 9, Israel as an entire nation is not the people of God. The people of God in Chapter 9 are individual Israelites and then in verse 24 Gentiles are included.

So then, the promises and covenants of God in Chapter 9 are given to "not all Israel." As I read your claims, you are saying that exact opposite of what Paul is saying. You are saying that the promises and covenants are to all Israel. Paul states that the Israel of the covenants and promises is "not all Israel." In other words, at the point of Chapter 9, it is to individual Israelites within national Israel, and not the nation as a whole.

The next question is to find out what promises are given to these elect individual Israelites. Paul offers his salvation for the salvation of his countrymen. The issue is salvation. In 9:30 Pauls says the issue is righteousness. This is the imputed righteousness of salvation (sigh, I know, another issue). This was the point of going back to the predestination of 8:29. Can you say that when some are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son, that does not relate to salvation? Does the concept justification in 8:30 and 8:33 not relate to salvation and the promises of God. in 9:25 to 9:29 there are 4 OT quotes referring to promises that Israel will continue to be the people of God. You tried to make a point about that. Are the people of God partially saved and partially unsaved?

Drew, so far it seems to me that in your theory of atonement, Jesus died to somehow help Israel inherit a geographical land promise that is totally unrelated to deliverance from sin or salvation.

If we see the potter metaphor as a treatment of the election of some to heaven and others to heall, we have Paul inserting a theological tangent that sits very uneasily with the general flow of his argument in these chapters, which is clearly focused on Israel.

Drew, this is totally unconvincing spin. Right up until the end of Chapter 11 there are issues of salvation. Is that not what Paul says in 11:26
26 and so all Israel shall be saved: ...
It is at this point in Paul's argument that the promises to national Israel are fulfilled. It is at this point that every individual Israelite becomes regenerate.

In my opinion, Paul is talking about a future revival among the Jewish people. Such views are held by James Boice (10th Presbyterian in Phila) and Hodge (Reformed expositor in the NICNT series), and other reformed.

And on the matter of the "Israel who are not Israel": Paul identifies a sub-set within genetic or national Israel. And later in the chapter the Gentiles are included in this group. So, for Paul, there are two Israels:

1. national Israel;
2. "true" Israel, constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

OK, maybe I said way to much in this post. I should go back and delete it all, but I am going to let it go. I am going to try and work through this with you concept by concept. For now, forget the rest of my post, and lets stay focused on Romans 9:6. This might sound like spin, but if you will, please let me take the lead here. Again, I do not mean this as spin, but I think it is the only way for you to see the context and argument of Chapter 9, rather then placing meaning on just individual word and phrases and then importing an incorrect meaning into the context. Lets see what we can first agree upon in the key verse, 9:6.

NOT ALL ISRAEL
First, would you agree that the phrase "not all Israel" refers to some within Israel who were unbelievers... right? Also, would you agree that the phrase "not all Israel" does not refer to Gentiles in any way. In fact would you agree that Gentiles are not even in the picture in Romans 9:6. Would you agree that they do not even enter the picture until Romans 9:24? Would you agree that we cannot define the nation of Israel as being "not all Israel?"

ARE OF ISRAEL
Would you agree that the term "of Israel" does indeed refer to the entire nation?

So then, if you agree so far, can you agree that Paul is saying that not all within the nation of Israel are elect Israelites?

PS, I will try to focus on this conversation, but as I am sure you cannot promise to always keep things rolling, I too pop in and out.

Mondar

 

[Drew]

Lets see what we can first agree upon in the key verse, 9:6.

NOT ALL ISRAEL
First, would you agree that the phrase "not all Israel" refers to some within Israel who were unbelievers... right?

Yes. Paul is saying that national Israel - the genetic descendents of Abraham - contains some people who are not "children of the promise"

Also, would you agree that the phrase "not all Israel" does not refer to Gentiles in any way.

Yes, I agree - at this point in his argument, all that Paul has done is to say that there exists a "true" Israel - an Israel according to the promise - that is made up of people who are a subset of national Israel.

In fact would you agree that Gentiles are not even in the picture in Romans 9:6. Would you agree that they do not even enter the picture until Romans 9:24?

I agree again.

Would you agree that we cannot define the nation of Israel as being "not all Israel?"

Sorry. Can you reword this question if you believe that you need to. I think that I have made my position clear:

1. There is a national Israel;
2. Early in Romans 9, Paul identifies a sub-set of this nation and calls them children of the promise.
3. There are therefore members of national Israel who are not children of the promise.

So then, if you agree so far, can you agree that Paul is saying that not all within the nation of Israel are elect Israelites?

I would need more information as to what you mean by the term "elect" here.

 

[mondar]

Lets see what we can first agree upon in the key verse, 9:6.

NOT ALL ISRAEL
First, would you agree that the phrase "not all Israel" refers to some within Israel who were unbelievers... right?

Yes. Paul is saying that national Israel - the genetic descendents of Abraham - contains some people who are not "children of the promise"

Also, would you agree that the phrase "not all Israel" does not refer to Gentiles in any way.

Yes, I agree - at this point in his argument, all that Paul has done is to say that there exists a "true" Israel - an Israel according to the promise - that is made up of people who are a subset of national Israel.

In fact would you agree that Gentiles are not even in the picture in Romans 9:6. Would you agree that they do not even enter the picture until Romans 9:24?

I agree again.

Would you agree that we cannot define the nation of Israel as being "not all Israel?"

Sorry. Can you reword this question if you believe that you need to. I think that I have made my position clear:

1. There is a national Israel;
2. Early in Romans 9, Paul identifies a sub-set of this nation and calls them children of the promise.
3. There are therefore members of national Israel who are not children of the promise.

OK, so we have------
group #1--National Israel. They are in Verse 6 in the 2nd phrase "of Israel."
group #2--children of promise---- There is no direct mention them in verse 6.
They are assumed by verse 6 but not mentioned in verse 6.
group #3-- unbelievers who are within national Israel. Found in verse 6 in the
phrase "for they are not all Israel."

Now you agreed upon these being the groups in verse 6 above. Right? This leaves me with the next questions. Some of them may seem simple, but I think it is necessary to state even the obvious and simple. The first proposition that I think we need to agree on is that group 1 and group 2 are not the same. Can you confirm this before we move on?

So then, if you agree so far, can you agree that Paul is saying that not all within the nation of Israel are elect Israelites?

I would need more information as to what you mean by the term "elect" here.

The question is very basic and at a very simple level. I prefer to stay focused upon verse 6, but if you feel the need, you can answer the question are unbelievers elect? The term εκλογην is found in verse 11. You can search Thayer, or any lexicon you wish and define it by any authority you choose. Thayers lexicon on page 197 defines εκλογην as elect or chosen.

 

[Drew]

OK, so we have------
group #1--National Israel. They are in Verse 6 in the 2nd phrase "of Israel."
group #2--children of promise---- There is no direct mention them in verse 6.
They are assumed by verse 6 but not mentioned in verse 6.
group #3-- unbelievers who are within national Israel. Found in verse 6 in the
phrase "for they are not all Israel."

Now you agreed upon these being the groups in verse 6 above. Right? This leaves me with the next questions. Some of them may seem simple, but I think it is necessary to state even the obvious and simple. The first proposition that I think we need to agree on is that group 1 and group 2 are not the same. Can you confirm this before we move on?

I do not following your wording in respect to group #1. Paul writes this in verse 6:

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Based on Paul's wording the first reference to Israel here is a reference to national Israel and the second mention of Israel in verse 6 is a refererence to "true" Israel - the children of the promise (even though this is not explicitly stated in verse 6). I think Paul is effectively saying this in verse 6b:

"Not all members of national Israel are members of true Israel"

I agree with what you say about groups 2 and 3.

So even though I did not follow your wording about group 1, I think we are in 100 % agreement about who these groups are.

I find your underlined question to be posed in a way I cannot answer. I would say that, at the point of the argument Paul is at in verse 6, group 2 is a sub-set of group 1. However, Paul will later (in chapter 9) add the Gentiles to group 2. When he does that, then we have the following groups:

1. Members of national Isreal who are unbelievers - these are the vessels of destruction;
2. Members of national Israel who are believers + Gentile who are believers - these are the vessels of glory.

The question is very basic and at a very simple level. I prefer to stay focused upon verse 6, but if you feel the need, you can answer the question are unbelievers elect? The term εκλογην is found in verse 11. You can search Thayer, or any lexicon you wish and define it by any authority you choose. Thayers lexicon on page 197 defines εκλογην as elect or chosen.

No. Unbelievers not elected or pre-destined to that state as individuals. And neither are believers elected as individuals.

I do not deny the word "elect" or "chosen" is used here. But I think that Paul is speaking at the levels of groups throughout this chapter - making statements about how one group was elected or chosen to one role and another group elected or chosen to a different role.

And he can do this without making any commitments about whether specific individuals are elected. This has been shown in other posts. Assuming that we all agree that "God elected group A to role X", the following argument is demonstrably incorrect:

1. Group A is comprised of specific individuals;
2. Therefore what is true of the group as whole - that they are elected to role X - is also necessarily true about the individual members.

People use this kind of argument all the time, but it is not correct.

 

[beloved57]

No. Unbelievers not elected or pre-destined to that state as individuals. And neither are believers elected as individuals.

acts 9:

15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

To be chosen to be a preacher of salvation, he had to be chosen to salvation..

rom 16:

13Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

rufus is one individual here, chosen in the Lord..the word chosen here is:

eklektos:

picked out, chosen

a) chosen by God,

 

[Drew]

No. Unbelievers not elected or pre-destined to that state as individuals. And neither are believers elected as individuals.

acts 9:

15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

To be chosen to be a preacher of salvation, he had to be chosen to salvation.

There are two problems with this argument. First there is no necessity to conclude that God's choice of Paul to "bear God's name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" entails that Paul was also chosen unto salvation.

God can indeed choose or pre-destine a person to perform some task without pre-destininng that the person will ever come to faith in the first place. Let’s consider a person “Fredâ€Â. I suggest that God can foreknow that Fred will “freely†accept the gift of covenant membership in Christ. And further, God can use this knowledge to pre-destine Fred to some task. God is pre-destining Fred to a task contingent upon His (God’s) foreknowledge of what “free will†choice Fred will make in respect to accepting the offer of salvation. God is using his own fore-knowledge of free will choices made by Fred in order to then pre-destine something else about Fred.

And the second problem is this: Even if God did pre-destine Paul to salvation, there is no basis to generalize from Paul's specific case to humans in general. Despite my belief that God does not generally pre-destine people to salvation, I am open to the possibility that in some very special cases, he does precisely this. My present view is that this what the pre-destination text in Ephesians 1 is saying - asserting that a small set of people were indeed pre-destined to salvation to "get the Church started".

But in any event, one cannot generalize from one example to all of humanity - we cannot take a statement made in respect to one person and simply assume that it generalizes to all people.

 

[Drew]

Further to the matter of who the vessels of destruction are in Romans 9. I claim that Paul is referring to unbelieving Israel. I believe that others think that these are unbelievers in general, whether Jew or Gentile, who have been pre-destined to ultimate loss.

This post will argue that a connection to Romans 3 adds further evidence to the case that the vessels of destruction are, in fact, unbelieving Jews.

The first chunk of Romans 3 is obviously about Israel:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

What does it mean for the Jew to be entrusted? It means to be given a role that benefits somebody else?

Now what does Paul say in Romans 9?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

I do not think the parallel is a co-incidence. In Romans 3 Paul asserts that the Jew has been entrusted with something, obviously for the benefit of others - that is what it means to be entrusted with something.

And now in Romans 9, he shows the strange way that Israel has fulfilled this role - she has been hardened unto destruction so that the riches of God's glory can be made known to the world.

And Paul finishes the thought in Romans 11:

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles ...

15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world,....

Notice how seeing unbelieving Israel as the vessels fitted for destruction confers a thematic unity across Romans 3, Romans 9, and Romans 11. And there are other strands of this very same theme in Romans 5 and Romans 7. Perhaps more about that later.

 

[Drew]

Sorry for the length of this. I want to give more reasons to see that the major theme of Romans 9 is how the destiny of national Israel and the destiny of the church ("true Israel") have been woven together in the purposes of God:

In Romans 3, Paul raises a number of questions and he raises them very specifically in the context of national Israel and the covenant. In the very first 2 verses, we have an introductory question, focussing on the Jew (national Israel) and her covenant role of being a blessing to the world:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

To be entrusted with the words of God is to be given those words for the sake of someone else. This is clearly a reference to the covenantal role given to Israel to be a blessing to the world.

Now look at how Paul introduces Romans 9 - with the very same issue of national Israel. And here he elaborates on answers to the question of 3:1 that he has already given in 3:2:

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised

These are, of course , the advantages of being a member of national Israel.

Now back to chapter 3, we get a more nuanced set of questions. These questions are about the more complex and specific issue of how the faithlessness of the Jew actually, and admittedly strangely, allows God’s own righteousness to shine forth, and whether the Jew should be blamed in such a context:

5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?

7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner�

Again, Paul is referring to the Jew here – in verse 7, he is talking about a hypothetical Jew raising the questions. The context demands this - chapter 3 is clearly focused on Israel and Israel only in the first 8 verses. It is only in verse 9 that Paul aligns himself with the Gentile, for rhetorical purposes, and asks "Is the Gentile any better?"

Make no mistake: these are questions about God's fairness in the way he has treated Israel. Why people forget that the first part of chapter 3 is about Israel is a mystery to me. Paul is still talking about the Jew in the above - he is not talking "humanity in general". We know this for two reasons: First, he has clearly introduced the chapter with an Israel focus and there is no reason to believe he has generalized beyond this without notice. Second, it is only later (verse 9 and following) that he expands his treatment to include the Gentile:

Now back to chapter 9:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "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 earthâ€Â.

It is clear that this is the very same complex question – is God unjust when he condemns the unrighteousness of someone even that very unrighteousness is used by God to promote God’s glory and purpose. And even though the question here is framed in respect to Pharaoh, the overall rhetorical structure of Romans 9 drives us inexorably to the conclusion that Paul is working up to making a similar point about Israel.

And later in Romans 9 we get a more refined answer to the same highly specific questions of chapters 3 and 9. Here is where the Pharaoh-specificity of the preceding text is replaced with a very strong implication of an Israel focus (in respect to the vessels of destruction):

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

This is the answer to the Romans 3 question. God has hardened Israel - remember the potter and his pot. Why has God done this? In order to allow God to fulfil the Abrahamic covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world. And this is precisely why the answer to the question of God’s faithfulness in the following Romans 3 question is “noâ€Â:

Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?

Remember that Romans 3 starts with a covenantal focus. So the “faithfulness†here is not some kind of “general†faithfulness – it denotes God’s faithfulness to the covenant. How has God been faithful to the covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world? The potter account of Romans 9 is the answer – He has hardened her, just like a clay pot in hardened in the purposes of the potter.

And this is underscored in Romans 11 where context is clear that the “they†is Israel:

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

Paul is an exceedingly sophisticated writer. In chapter 3, he raises questions about God's treatment of Israel. In chapter 9, he gives answers to these question. Please note how specific one of the chapter 3 questions is - How does the unrighteousness of the Jew increase God's righteousness?. And the potter account is the perfect answer. For some reason, God has "molded Israel for destruction" - effectively elected her to be the place where the sin of the world is heaped together and brought to full flower of expression. This is how the "falsehood" or stumble of the Jew enhances God's glory because God has used this stumble to bring salvation to the world.

Some may question the sense of God molding Israel to be a vessel to bear the sin of the world. Well, I trust you know how I will respond - God does precisely the same thing to Jesus, making Him the vessel into which the sins of the world are collected and borne. Israel is acting as the “set-up†man for Jesus – being hardened by being the place sin is heaped up and accumulated before it is transferred to her representative Messiah where it is then condemned.

Now, if the potter stuff in Romans 9 is really about the pre-destined lost and the pre-destined saved, this entire, rich, subtle, and interconnected argument woven through Romans simply falls apart. Does that really seem plausible to you?

 

[mondar]

Drew,
You are still picking a word here, a phrase there, and not developing the argument of Romans 9. When you pick only a word, then go several chapters away and compare it with another word, it gives you the opening to import ideas foreign to the context.

You see the term "Jew" in one passage, and equate it to the term "Israel" in another passage without even demonstrating that there is a relationship between the thematic material of each passage. Something else, you dont seem to understand the concept of Covenant in the book of Romans. You use the word Covenant like it is the end all of all discussions. It is very noticeable that when you use the word "Covenant" you are never specific which covenant you are talking about. Also, you make this jump or leap. You see some term that is related to a covenant concept, and leap to the conclusion that this absolutely has to mean Paul is writing about Israel. In your mind this is the end all of all arguments. That does not establish anything except that there is a term related to some covenant. That does not establish that the context relates exclusively to the nation of Israel, and not individual Israelites within the nation. I am also getting to another issue, you switch from the remnant back and forth to the term Israel and never even notice you are doing it.

Such a disjointed approach to the text can result in nearly any theology being read back into the text.

No one reads any literature that way. We start with sentences, build paragraphs of thought, and then we compare one paragraph with another.

So far, I see your presentation as only negative. You do not affirm anything about the text. You merely deny that Romans is about any individual salvation because its all about covenant. What does that have to do with the audience that Paul sent the message to? To just repeat over and over how everything is about covenant and the nation Israel means nothing except you disagree with the position of others. Such statements affirm nothing.

I remember you writing about Israel being the oracles of God. Now I think Israel as the oracles of God is related to "covenant kindness" (hesid) with Israel, but that is not the essence of any one of the revealed Covenants between God and Israel.

It is so easy to notice that when you pick and choose what words you want to compare to get meaning out of a text, you skip all over. You jump from Chapter 2 and 3 to chapter 9. Did you notice there are 5 chapters of argument that are between. So do these chapters have nothing to do with "Covenant" and "ISrael?" So Paul cannot stay on topic? He goes off on dog trails and then finally makes a sudden shift and comes back to the topic.

Drew, using your methodology, you could make any book of the bible to be a about "Covenant" and "Israel." Your methodology makes Romans to be the most dull book ever read. What does it say about Covenant Israel? Nothing? It just says that ISrael received the oracles of God and covenant blessings?

WOW, I bet that was news to the Jewish readers of Pauls day.

 

[Drew]

You are still picking a word here, a phrase there, and not developing the argument of Romans 9. When you pick only a word, then go several chapters away and compare it with another word, it gives you the opening to import ideas foreign to the context.

I am only pointing the incredible complexity and unity of Paul's arguments. My previous post shows quite clearly that Romans 3 (the first 8 verses) introduce questions about the Jew that are picked up and further explored and answered in Romans 9. It is not a hard case to make - the parallels are so many that the case basically makes itself.

You see the term "Jew" in one passage, and equate it to the term "Israel" in another passage without even demonstrating that there is a relationship between the thematic material of each passage.

I think I have been exceedingly clear about the themes and the meaning of the terms. Perhaps you should give an example - any example at all - of an unjustified conclusion that I have drawn.

Something else, you dont seem to understand the concept of Covenant in the book of Romans. You use the word Covenant like it is the end all of all discussions. It is very noticeable that when you use the word "Covenant" you are never specific which covenant you are talking about.

I am only following Paul here. The nature of his argument, although perhaps subtle, is all about how Jesus brings the Abrahamic covenant to its climax. I have been clear about the covenant that I am talking about. In this thread and in multiple other posts, I have made this quite clear.

Also, you make this jump or leap. You see some term that is related to a covenant concept, and leap to the conclusion that this absolutely has to mean Paul is writing about Israel. In your mind this is the end all of all arguments. That does not establish anything except that there is a term related to some covenant. That does not establish that the context relates exclusively to the nation of Israel, and not individual Israelites within the nation. I am also getting to another issue, you switch from the remnant back and forth to the term Israel and never even notice you are doing it.

Please give a specific example of one point -any point at all will do - and I will be happy to engage that.

You do not affirm anything about the text. You merely deny that Romans is about any individual salvation because its all about covenant.

Incorrect. It is clear to the reader who actually engages my argument that I do more than simply deny that Romans is talking about "individual" salvation. Why, in the very last post I asserted the following:

1. Israel is the vessel fitted for destruction;
2. This effects the purposes of God by bringing salvation to the world;
3. Israel's being hardened is coherently connected to the climactic work of Jesus;
4. God is not throwing away the Abrahamic covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world - the blessing has, strangely, taken the form of Isreal needing to be hardened.

What does that have to do with the audience that Paul sent the message to?

Paul is writing to a mixed Jew + Gentile church in Rome and is motivated for both "sides" to understand how God has woven them together in his purposes. Hence we have Romans 9 through 11, chapter 9 explaining how Israel has been a vessel of desctruction to the benefit of the Gentile and chapter 11 exhorting the Gentiles to appreciate how the hardening of the Jew has had salvific effect - the stuff about the branches of the olive tree.

To just repeat over and over how everything is about covenant and the nation Israel means nothing except you disagree with the position of others. Such statements affirm nothing.

I have done far more than "repeat" things over and over again. Why not actually engage my arguments instead of falsely characterising them?

I remember you writing about Israel being the oracles of God. Now I think Israel as the oracles of God is related to "covenant kindness" (hesid) with Israel, but that is not the essence of any one of the revealed Covenants between God and Israel.

God coventally promised that Abraham that through him all the nations of the world will blessed. The giving of the Torah fulfills this - and through the Torah's hardening effect on Israel - the world has indeed been blessed. Romans 5, 7, 9, and 11 all make this case.

It is so easy to notice that when you pick and choose what words you want to compare to get meaning out of a text, you skip all over. You jump from Chapter 2 and 3 to chapter 9. Did you notice there are 5 chapters of argument that are between.

Guilty as charged - but I am only following Paul. I think you need to concede the irrefutable connections between chapters 3 and 9 - I do not see how the objective reader can ignore them. Paul's argument in Romans clearly has a spiral structure which I may elaborate in another thread. So there are demonstrably many examples where Paul gives a teaser on a certain topic early in Romans, only to return to that issue once he has developed the conceptual tools to respond in the intervening chapters.

An example is Romans 2 - we are told that we are justified at the end by our good works, and yet we are not told how this works. In Romans 8, Paul picks up this issues and explains how the Spirit answers the mystery. Same thing with Romans 3 and 9. The connections are too strong to be co-incidences.

 

[mondar]

You are still picking a word here, a phrase there, and not developing the argument of Romans 9. When you pick only a word, then go several chapters away and compare it with another word, it gives you the opening to import ideas foreign to the context.

I am only pointing the incredible complexity and unity of Paul's arguments. My previous post shows quite clearly that Romans 3 (the first 8 verses) introduce questions about the Jew that are picked up and further explored and answered in Romans 9. It is not a hard case to make - the parallels are so many that the case basically makes itself.

This looks like empty claims to me. You have yet to demonstrate any "unity" within the book more then to pick out a word here and there that are somehow related.

Anyone can pick out a word here and there and then import meaning. So far you have done nothing substantial.

You see the term "Jew" in one passage, and equate it to the term "Israel" in another passage without even demonstrating that there is a relationship between the thematic material of each passage.

I think I have been exceedingly clear about the themes and the meaning of the terms. Perhaps you should give an example - any example at all - of an unjustified conclusion that I have drawn.

So because you see the word Jew in Chapter 2 and the word Israel in Chapter 9 you decide Romans cannot be about anything but the election of the nation Israel? What does a word here and there that somehow can be vaguely associated with "covenant community" have to do with a substantial demonstration of the argument of the passage?

Something else, you dont seem to understand the concept of Covenant in the book of Romans. You use the word Covenant like it is the end all of all discussions. It is very noticeable that when you use the word "Covenant" you are never specific which covenant you are talking about.

I am only following Paul here. The nature of his argument, although perhaps subtle, is all about how Jesus brings the Abrahamic covenant to its climax. I have been clear about the covenant that I am talking about. In this thread and in multiple other posts, I have made this quite clear.

Obviously you think you have made something clear, but all I see are claims and word associations. I have yet to see you actually put whole sentences and associate them into paragraphs of material.

I dont see the Abrahamic Covenant to be remotely possibility as the major theme of Romans. The Abraham is not even mentioned until Chapter 4. If you look out there in the scholarly world, nearly every commentator says that 1:16-17 is the stated theme of Romans. It is the gospel. Even in Chapter 4, Abraham is nothing more then a sidelight. Paul merely quotes Abraham as an illustration of justification by faith.

You do not affirm anything about the text. You merely deny that Romans is about any individual salvation because its all about covenant.

Incorrect. It is clear to the reader who actually engages my argument that I do more than simply deny that Romans is talking about "individual" salvation. Why, in the very last post I asserted the following:

1. Israel is the vessel fitted for destruction;
2. This effects the purposes of God by bringing salvation to the world;
3. Israel's being hardened is coherently connected to the climactic work of Jesus;
4. God is not throwing away the Abrahamic covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world - the blessing has, strangely, taken the form of Isreal needing to be hardened.

OK, you do select a few words and phrases in the text and refer to them. My point was more that you do not use blocks of material. You do not follow a sentence and put it into a paragraph with related sentences. You are completely failing to do more then pick a word here, and pick a word there, and import meaning to those words.

What does that have to do with the audience that Paul sent the message to?

Paul is writing to a mixed Jew + Gentile church in Rome and is motivated for both "sides" to understand how God has woven them together in his purposes. Hence we have Romans 9 through 11, chapter 9 explaining how Israel has been a vessel of desctruction to the benefit of the Gentile
and chapter 11 exhorting the Gentiles to appreciate how the hardening of the Jew has had salvific effect - the stuff about the branches of the olive tree.

The vessel of destruction is for the glory of God, not the benefit of the Gentiles. If the pot fitted to destruction is only Israel, and if God is hardening Israels heart only, then the Pharaoh is a Jew. Does that sound bizarre (that the Pharaoh is a Jew)? Oh my, was he actually a Gentile? Maybe its your claim that the pot fitted to destruction is only Israel is bizarre.

To just repeat over and over how everything is about covenant and the nation Israel means nothing except you disagree with the position of others. Such statements affirm nothing.

I have done far more than "repeat" things over and over again. Why not actually engage my arguments instead of falsely characterising them?

Maybe I do not engage your so called arguments because you supply either no support or inadequate support. As I said, just picking a few words here and there is not working with the sentences and paragraphs of a passage.

Quite a while back, I went through Romans 9 and layed out a coherent structure, and you for the most part ignored what I said. Soon you go on repeating the same old claim over and over.... that Romans 9 is only about national Israel.

I remember you writing about Israel being the oracles of God. Now I think Israel as the oracles of God is related to "covenant kindness" (hesid) with Israel, but that is not the essence of any one of the revealed Covenants between God and Israel.

God coventally promised that Abraham that through him all the nations of the world will blessed. The giving of the Torah fulfills this - and through the Torah's hardening effect on Israel - the world has indeed been blessed. Romans 5, 7, 9, and 11 all make this case.

Excuse me? Can you show me the verse that says the Abrahamic Covenant is "fulfilled?" Even more yet, can you show me a verse that says that the giving of the Torah fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant?

Again, this is a great illustration of how you see a word here and there, and string meaning into your preconceived idea of what those words mean. There is not text proposing what you say above. You will only point to words.

It is so easy to notice that when you pick and choose what words you want to compare to get meaning out of a text, you skip all over. You jump from Chapter 2 and 3 to chapter 9. Did you notice there are 5 chapters of argument that are between.

Guilty as charged - but I am only following Paul. I think you need to concede the irrefutable connections between chapters 3 and 9 - I do not see how the objective reader can ignore them. Paul's argument in Romans clearly has a spiral structure which I may elaborate in another thread. So there are demonstrably many examples where Paul gives a teaser on a certain topic early in Romans, only to return to that issue once he has developed the conceptual tools to respond in the intervening chapters.

An example is Romans 2 - we are told that we are justified at the end by our good works, and yet we are not told how this works. In Romans 8, Paul picks up this issues and explains how the Spirit answers the mystery. Same thing with Romans 3 and 9. The connections are too strong to be co-incidences.

So then because you see a word here and there, that is a "strong connection?" You can talk about spiral arguments, and Paul starting off and then leaving the issue for later in the book, but its only the word association game. You are only pointing to a word here, and a phrase there to establish what you think the text means. You are still not dealing with whole sentences that fit into topical paragraphs, and then comparing paragraph with paragraph. So then you establish connections not based upon actual content and context, but upon word associations.