romans 9 study

[beloved57]

Romans 9 What does it teach ? In parts..


The enemy of the gospel of Gods Free Sovereign Grace is under attack more than ever in this day and time we live in. The Fact that the bible teaches God is Free and Sovereign in the administration of His mercy and salvation, Is eclipsed with the man exalting concept that man has the freewill, hence man is sovereign in his own salvation being he at anytime may utilize his freewill and get saved.

But May God be true and all men liars..

One of the chapters in the bible that testifies to Gods absolute Sovereigny to save whom ever he will, and with hold Salvation from whomever He will is taught in romans 9..

The devil has been busy though in sending his servants to corrupt and change the truth into a lie..

One of the ways this is being strategically done is by men saying that romans 9 is not talking about individual salvation but corporate election only..This however is not true, and by the grace of God, I will set out to prove that yes indeed romans 9 is talking about individual salvation..

First of all the whole context of the book of romans is grounded and centered in salvation, in fact, it is the gospel of Jesus christ set forth in its theological framework. It has themes such as mans depravity and inability , unconditional election, particular atonement, effectual call, preservation of the saints , deity of christ, and the mystery of israel and the church. All of which are vital gospel truthes for the elect of God, and the salvation of their souls..

Now, the book as I said is premised on salvation as we see from perhaps the verses that so aptly lay out the theme of the book rom 1:5-17


15So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

This is a gospel that is from God to his elect or called ones. rom 1:

6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

rom 1:


1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Now moving right along to the 9th chapter we find the following..

vs 1-5

1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

The concern here is that there apparently seemed to be something gone wrong here in that the pauls kinsmen in the flesh the physical Jew , were not for the most part expriencing salvation , and appeared to be foresaken of God , abandoned.. This caused paul apparently some sorrow of heart and heaviness.

And I see nothing wrong with wishful thinking , as it pertains to the salvation of friends and family, or those to whom God has caused us to fell close to..Paul had a natural affinity for his kinsmen in the flesh..

I dont know if this was sinful on pauls behalf or not, but in light of this it would be later that he suffered mightly from these his kinsmen..

2 cor 11:

24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

Note; God will ween his children from all inordinate affection..

The reason for this is because it was suggested that paul went a little too far in saying he could wish to be accursed from christ for his brethern sake according to the flesh..and if that is what he really meant, he was definitly wrong for that thought and God chastised him good..with those very jews he had such passion for..

But getting back to the subject, the perplexity was salvation being with held from the jews or Israel according to the flesh.

It was no secret that God had singled out this nation for national prominence from what we read in vs4-5

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
It had appeared that in light of all israels past glory as Gods favoured people and the promises made to israel , that these promises have now fallen to the ground, and His covenant people set aside..

But paul sets out to resolve this issue by first stating, in vs 6:

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

He first says, all israel [ the true spiritual israel of God] is not of national israel

Paul was saying that all the salvaic[ covenant ] promises of God were not directed to Israel as a nation but to a spiritual israel within the nation. Those who are the foreknown according to Gods eternal purpose in christ..rom 11:

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

So paul first dispelling of the problem is that all israel is not from your country israel..

Next he goes on to explain further his point about not the national people where the original focus, but God had an eye to a people within a people..He proves this further in vs:7-9


7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
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. 9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

As we know abe had two sons , one was name ishmael and the other issach..God made a choice to whom the heir of the covenant promises would be, and it was Isaach not ishmael..In fact at one point the inspired writer totally disregarded ishmael and was moved to write:

gen 22:

16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Question ? Was not ishmael abes son ?

But the point is this, that those who belong to the covenant are like isaach was children of promise..What does this mean ? It means , that those who are Gods true israel , their births are brought about by the bare promise of Gods word alone..You see issach was a promised child by God when human effort was not a option for this to be accomplished..note:

gen 18:

9And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

So in actuality it was not possible physically for sarah to have a child on her own..

But this child was to brought about my the onipotence and power of God notice vs 14 a

Is any thing too hard for the LORD?

Issachs birth was by the promise of God, not human will..

So like wise is the true jew, he or she are children of promise..It was promised to christ prophetically that a seed shall serve him..

ps 22:

30A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

cp isa 53:

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

so the true israel are as Isaach recieve their spirtual birth by Gods promise, and james alludes to this in james 1:


17Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth[ or promise], that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

God The Holy Spirit gives newbirth to the heirs of promise at his Sovereign appointed pleasure..jn 3:

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

i emphasize appointed time because this was the terminology God used to abe and sarah : gen 18:

14Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

so paul goes on to tell the galatians that true believers are appointed just as isaach was appointed..

gal 4:

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

end of part 1

 

[Drew]

Romans 9 What does it teach ? In parts..


The enemy of the gospel of Gods Free Sovereign Grace is under attack more than ever in this day and time we live in. The Fact that the bible teaches God is Free and Sovereign in the administration of His mercy and salvation, Is eclipsed with the man exalting concept that man has the freewill, hence man is sovereign in his own salvation being he at anytime may utilize his freewill and get saved.

But May God be true and all men liars..

One of the chapters in the bible that testifies to Gods absolute Sovereigny to save whom ever he will, and with hold Salvation from whomever He will is taught in romans 9..

The devil has been busy though in sending his servants to corrupt and change the truth into a lie..

This is a strategy called "poisoning the well". It is commonmly used. Basically the OP has started by tacitly suggesting that those who believe in the reality of free will are "liars" and minions of the devil. And, of course, in so doing, it lowers the level of the discourse to a very low level indeed.

And, interestingly, it suggests that the pre-destination case is not strong enough to rest on the merits of the scriptures and needs to be shored up by villifying those of a contrary position.

Let the reader judge for herself whether this is an appropriate and constructive strategy.

Having said that, I am more than happy to discuss Romans 9 in excruciating detail..... :P

 

[3rddayuprising]

The problem with believing in God's sovereignty and the obvious Truths of predestination...for the "unbelievers and worshippers of self-will", is that it gives them nothing to do...and THAT in itself is EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL for them.

 

[Drew]

The problem with believing in God's sovereignty and the obvious Truths of predestination...for the "unbelievers and worshippers of self-will", is that it gives them nothing to do...and THAT in itself is EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL for them.

I would have thought that it would be those who deny "free will" who have "nothing to do".

 

[Drew]

With respect to who the vessels fitted for destruction are in Romans 9. First, we have to agree that we simply cannot come to this text having already decided who these groups are. That would violate any and all reasonable principles of exegesis.

So the only reasonable position to take is this: come to Romans 9 with an open mind as to who, exactly, the vessels fitted for destruction actually are. It is no good for me to simply declare that they are the Jews. And it is no good for others to simply declare that they are the pre-destined lost.

So here is my evidence, in very high level form, as to why we need to see the vessels as being the Jews (and therefore not the pre-destined lost);

1. Much precedent in the Old Testament of scripture writers using the potter metaphor in specific relation to how God treats Israel. Paul has introduced Romans 9 with a treatment of national Israel and Romans 9 is Israel focused at the end as well. What kind of a writer would he be to insert an Old Testament metaphor, where the pot is always Israel, into the middle of a chapter that begins and end with obvious Israel focus, all the while intending the reader to think of the pot (vessels fitted for destruction) as being the pre-destined elect and not Israel. That would involve violating a pattern just when it would be most confusing. Paul is not that kind of writer.

2. The pre-destined lost are nowhere introduced by Paul. The Calvinist merely declares that this group has come to Paul’s mind when he writes about vessels fitted for destruction. Instead Paul has been writing about 2 groups – “true†Israel (clearly the vessels fitted for glory) and national Israel (clearly the vessel fitted for destruction if context is actually respected.

3. Paul has been arguing throughout Romans that the Torah has been used by God to make sin grow in national Israel (Romans 5:20 and Romans 7:13). If sin does indeed grow in national Israel, what does this make Israel? It makes her a vessel full of sin. And such a vessel is a vessel “fitted for destructionâ€Â.

4. In Romans 9, Paul picks up the very same questions as introduced at the beginning of chapter 3. In chapter 3, Paul asks “But if our unrighteousness (and here by context he is talking about the Jews) brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?†This is the same question as we get in Romans 9:14: “What then shall we say? Is God unjust?†The first bit of Romans 3 is about how the Jews have been faithless. And so in 9:14, Paul still is reflecting on the Jews. He has not mysteriously drifted in to a discussion about the eternal destinies of individuals.

5. Romans 11 makes references to the Jews being hardened (sound familiar? – this is what happens to a pot fitted for destruction). From Romans 11:7 and following: “What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not attain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written : ‘God gave them a stupor, eyes so that they could not see’â€Â. Romans 11 is part of an argument starting at chapter 9. And please notice the similar structure in this text from Romans 11 to the potter metaphor. On the one hand we have the elect and on the other hand we have Israel (this is obvious here in Romans 11, if not in Romans 9). Now, do you really think that Paul would have an “elect†vs “Israel†dichotomy here in 11 and yet intend us to understand an “elect to be saved†vs “elect to damnation†dichotomy in Romans 9?. No. Paul in both cases is comparing an "elect" to the nation of Israel.

I can give more detail on all these points and others. The evidence is overwhelming. The vessels fitted for destruction of chapter 9 have to be the Jews, not the pre-destined lost.

Remember the covenant with Abraham. What was the purpose of that covenant? That the Jews would be the means by which the world will be blessed. And how can the Jews bless the world? In the strange and wonderful purposes of God, Paul realizes that they fulfill this calling precisely by acting out the Christ-pattern – by being a vessel fitted for destruction where the sins of the whole world are accumulated in preparation for condemnation. This is why Paul says this in Romans 11: “Because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles…†. I am not putting these words into the mouth of Paul. He sees Israel as the vessel full of transgression, cast away so that the world can be saved. And the covenant is thereby fulfilled.

 

[beloved57]

Having said that, I am more than happy to discuss Romans 9 in excruciating detail...

I know you are willing to show all your denial of truth..thats all you have done is reject truth in favor of your humanism..I have given you a detail discussion of romans 9, you rejected it..and i yours likewise..so the people if interested can judge my detail argument and yours and decide for themselves..my Job is to testify to the truth, i am aware of truthes adversaries though, like yourself..

 

[Drew]

Having said that, I am more than happy to discuss Romans 9 in excruciating detail...

I know you are willing to show all your denial of truth..thats all you have done is reject truth in favor of your humanism..I have given you a detail discussion of romans 9, you rejected it..and i yours likewise..so the people if interested can judge my detail argument and yours and decide for themselves..my Job is to testify to the truth, i am aware of truthes adversaries though, like yourself..

Do you have nothing at all to say to repudiate the five points in my previous post? I have to be wrong on all these points if your position is to be sustained. So please tell us where I am wrong in respect to my detailed post and its 5 points.

Let's take my point number 2 (chosen at random):

The pre-destined lost are nowhere introduced by Paul. The Calvinist merely declares that this group has come to Paul’s mind when he writes about vessels fitted for destruction. Instead Paul has been writing about 2 groups – “true†Israel (clearly the vessels fitted for glory) and national Israel (clearly the vessel fitted for destruction if context is actually respected

So please tell us - where, exactly, does Paul introduce the "pre-destined lost" in Romans 9, something he presumaby would have to do if he intends to refer to them by the expression "vessels fitted for destruction". If you cannot give an answer, your only position is to say that "Paul suddenly, and without notice, in the middle of a treatment of national Israel and "true Israel", makes a statement about a group - the pre-destined lost - that are not on the table".

And if you make this statement, I will be interested to know how you determined that it is the pre-destined lost that are "vessel of destruction" and not some other group. In other words, on precisely what grounds do you take the phrase "vessels fitted for destruction" and substitute "pre-destined lost"? How does Paul's argument support such a substitution?

 

[beloved57]

Do you have nothing at all to say to repudiate the five points in my previous post? I have to be wrong on all these points if your position is to be sustained

Just to say, you have rejected the truth i have presented to you..now others may decide on their own..I have given a detailed summation of the truth..

 

[beloved57]

So please tell us - where, exactly, does Paul introduce the "pre-destined lost" in Romans 9,

That question is answered in my study on romans 9 which you already rejected..

 

[Drew]

Do you have nothing at all to say to repudiate the five points in my previous post? I have to be wrong on all these points if your position is to be sustained

Just to say, you have rejected the truth i have presented to you..now others may decide on their own..I have given a detailed summation of the truth..

Fair enough - if you think that you do need to engage counterarguments to your stated position, you have that right. I suggest, though, that the reader will interpret this silence in a manner not at all favourable to your position. But, again, you are of course within your rights to be mute in response to those who challenge you.

 

[Vic C.]

I know you are willing to show all your denial of truth..thats all you have done is reject truth in favor of your humanism..I have given you a detail discussion of romans 9, you rejected it..and i yours likewise..so the people if interested can judge my detail argument and yours and decide for themselves..my Job is to testify to the truth, i am aware of truthes adversaries though, like yourself..

With all due respect, while you are here, your "job" is to address issues and not go on personal attacks against another member. Please refrain from posting derogatory remarks against Drew or anyone else. Address doctrinal issues, not persons.

Last straw, Beloved.

Thank You.

 

[beloved57]

*Deleted by Staff*

 

[beloved57]

With all due respect, while you are here, your "job" is to address issues

with all due respect, i will address whomever i want to address..

and not go on personal attacks against another member.

I merely intimate drew and anyone for the matter, has rejected the truth..thats no more of an personal attack as he or you telling me i am wrong in not seeing it your way..i dont take it personal to be told i am wrong..

Please refrain from posting derogatory remarks

what derogatory remark have i called someone ?

 

[whitecloud]

Dear Brothers in Christ.

Yah, Roman 9 is a whopper for sure. My church is studying Romans in Sunday school. We just finished how all things work together for good to those who are called acording to His purpose. How many times have we all read Romans and studied and laid His word in our hearts. There is so much there and so little time. I have come to continue to try to understand what it is that God is saying that He wishes that all men would come to God and the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Yes many are born in Zion and have the hand of God upon them. Jesus said "all who labor and are heavy burdend to come, who so ever willeth to come, go ye into the hyways and byways and compell them to come. His for knowledge is wonderful, He made a plan and we are living it out.
I come from a group that their theology has all men totally deprived and salvation is as easily lost as gained. Dear me, Jesus paid the price for any sinner to come unto Him. I sure would not want to be the person who by my words or doctrin would even bruse even one of His who He died for. Paul said He died and shed His blood for the WHOLE world, even more so unto us who have recieved Him and believe.

Our evidence that the whole universe itself is working and providing for the good of His creation is sufficiant proof for us to exspress our beliefs to the doubter and scoffers, it is suficiant to except the will of God in Christ Jesus is for all Humanity. Orelse why is the word depicting exsistance seperated from Gods love for an eternaty, since they are still guilty of the crusifiction instead of for whom it was given to. Not because we blow them off, but because we share the gospel of their salvation as well as ours. I may be a special creation, but that means everyone is.
It takes us all or we should stop believing that abortion is wrong. Either everything is sacred or nothing is sacred at all.

I am from Paul, I am from Calvin, I am from Westly, I am from Wigglesworth. Termanal Generation thinking really ought to be a little above early reformation I would gather. Restoration of all truth, yet none of us know it all.

When the gross darkness is cast away and Jesus face we see, we shall see His love who has provided all, from sea to shinning sea, from Heavens above for you and for me.

Ahhh there is so much in Romans. Yet ever Sin is the problem and Jesus is THE answer. To that end we stand in the defence of the Gosple of Jesus Christ. Yes, we know the good guys win, yet others will have Him found in their midst who did not seek Him. For He ever still is searching the whole earth to find those who will hear His voice and obey. How shall they know unless they are told and how shall they hear unless we go or send others.

Show any man a dirty and a clean trash can and ask Him what He would like to be compared to. Again I believe we have choice or there is no need for all the sufferings of God in Christ . Even beyond that. The whole universe is working for good and is leading us on a jouney of discovery. I believe God even uses silly ape men to provide and improve the lives of His beloved.

Sorry to dispell anyones belief about their calling, but the branches need to bear His fruit or they will be cast aside and new brances grafed in. Why did He tell us that would you think. Crazy love for sure, Yet we know His Word is Truth and He cannot lie. Seems the bible is of no private interpretation. How unique.

Fruit that remains, from hiways, byways and hedges, I'll be now....

I once said a joke to someone that our good baptist believers would baptise any bipedal that would come. Indeed they would probably baptise them as many times as it takes to make it a take. I may not fully agree, but I sure don't disagree. Jesus is Lord.

Hope that helps, hope Jesus comes soon....

 

[brakelite2]

I'd like to address just one point. You suggested that Paul was wrong to offer to lay down his eternal life if his beloved Israel could be saved. There are two precedents for this kind of attitude of Paul's. The first was when Moses offered to have his name removed from the book of life rather than allow Israel to be judged and condemned. God did not reprove Moses for his attitude, only to say that Israel must stand or fall on their own, and no fault could be transferred.
Jesus however set the prime example. He lay down His eternal life for us. He died with no hope of seeing the other side of the grave. (Else how could it be said that He paid the full price? Is it not the lack of all hope that will torment us even more than the fire?) So Jesus Himself laid down His life for us, and as He said, greater love hath no man than he that lays down his life for his friends. Paul's love for his fellow countrymen motivated him to offer his life for Israel .And you claim that God disapproves of this? Come on now. How could God be so two-faced. Practice one thing in His Son, and rebuke Paul for having the same attitude?

A challenge to you. In another letter Paul says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. That means we ought to be willing to lay down even our eternal lives for our spouse. That is the nature of true self-sacrificial love. You up to that?

 

[whitecloud]

Hey Brakelite, what you say? Giving up eternal life for what. To die for others or some one so that those others might live is love in any portion you wanna lay it out. Selling your eternal soul for anothers well being, is not going to benefit the one you are attempting to serve in Christ. You would be walking dead again, what value is that to anyones eternal soul.

You may have miss spoke yourself. I am sorry if I missunderstood.

Isn't that partially the point. I went to the alter with a lady, We each said yah, sure thing. After the honeymoon it became apparent that I might of miss spoke myself, she cought on and said you fool you never did understood, kiss me were stuck for good. Oh, my eternal soul, thank you Jesus you sent someone to love and to be loved. I think, less I am miss understood.

Gods grace and love be with you.

Apologetics and Theology, you guys really crack me up. I wonder how God feels about the whole thing. May His spirit ever lead us , unto that perfect day.

 

[3rddayuprising]

The problem with believing in God's sovereignty and the obvious Truths of predestination...for the "unbelievers and worshippers of self-will", is that it gives them nothing to do...and THAT in itself is EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL for them.

I would have thought that it would be those who deny "free will" who have "nothing to do".

Absolutely. See, now you're getting confused. We absolutely want "nothing to do". When the disciples asked Jesus, "what must we DO to work the works of God?" Jesus said, "THIS is the work of God, to believe on Him whom He hath sent." John 6:28,29

This is the REST for the people of God. The Spirit of God...working through us. His "yoke is easy, and His burden light."

 

[3rddayuprising]

I'd like to address just one point. You suggested that Paul was wrong to offer to lay down his eternal life if his beloved Israel could be saved. There are two precedents for this kind of attitude of Paul's. The first was when Moses offered to have his name removed from the book of life rather than allow Israel to be judged and condemned. God did not reprove Moses for his attitude, only to say that Israel must stand or fall on their own, and no fault could be transferred.
Jesus however set the prime example. He lay down His eternal life for us. He died with no hope of seeing the other side of the grave. (Else how could it be said that He paid the full price? Is it not the lack of all hope that will torment us even more than the fire?) So Jesus Himself laid down His life for us, and as He said, greater love hath no man than he that lays down his life for his friends. Paul's love for his fellow countrymen motivated him to offer his life for Israel .And you claim that God disapproves of this? Come on now. How could God be so two-faced. Practice one thing in His Son, and rebuke Paul for having the same attitude?

A challenge to you. In another letter Paul says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. That means we ought to be willing to lay down even our eternal lives for our spouse. That is the nature of true self-sacrificial love. You up to that?

No, actually, I don't think I'm "up to" going against what Jesus said. Luke 14:26 "If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

These are all natural fashions of this world...and if it ever comes down to the crunch, where we must choose between serving Jesus or putting our natural lives first, we had better be ready "forsake all and follow Him"!

If we were to ever give up our "eternal life" for anything NATURAL...it's called "selling our birthright" as Esau did. And it's called spiritual adultery.

And actually, one other major correction....Jesus did so have HOPE in seeing the other side of the grave! "For the joy set before Him, He endured the Cross..." Heb.12:2

He saw from the scriptures in Psalms that God would not suffer His soul to see corruption. Psalm 16:10

His hope was in the Father raising Him from the dead, or else He could not and would not have done it. Hebrews 2:13 "And AGAIN, I will put My trust in Him..."

This kind of hope and expectation is not selfish, but it is for the sake of others...others reaching a higher level of life. Paul said, "death worketh in us, but life in you."

Here we see again the process of a true seed of God...the process of death bringing Resurrection Life.

 

[brakelite2]

I'd like to address just one point. You suggested that Paul was wrong to offer to lay down his eternal life if his beloved Israel could be saved. There are two precedents for this kind of attitude of Paul's. The first was when Moses offered to have his name removed from the book of life rather than allow Israel to be judged and condemned. God did not reprove Moses for his attitude, only to say that Israel must stand or fall on their own, and no fault could be transferred.
Jesus however set the prime example. He lay down His eternal life for us. He died with no hope of seeing the other side of the grave. (Else how could it be said that He paid the full price? Is it not the lack of all hope that will torment us even more than the fire?) So Jesus Himself laid down His life for us, and as He said, greater love hath no man than he that lays down his life for his friends. Paul's love for his fellow countrymen motivated him to offer his life for Israel .And you claim that God disapproves of this? Come on now. How could God be so two-faced. Practice one thing in His Son, and rebuke Paul for having the same attitude?

A challenge to you. In another letter Paul says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. That means we ought to be willing to lay down even our eternal lives for our spouse. That is the nature of true self-sacrificial love. You up to that?

No, actually, I don't think I'm "up to" going against what Jesus said. Luke 14:26 "If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

These are all natural fashions of this world...and if it ever comes down to the crunch, where we must choose between serving Jesus or putting our natural lives first, we had better be ready "forsake all and follow Him"!

If we were to ever give up our "eternal life" for anything NATURAL...it's called "selling our birthright" as Esau did. And it's called spiritual adultery.

And actually, one other major correction....Jesus did so have HOPE in seeing the other side of the grave! "For the joy set before Him, He endured the Cross..." Heb.12:2

He saw from the scriptures in Psalms that God would not suffer His soul to see corruption. Psalm 16:10

His hope was in the Father raising Him from the dead, or else He could not and would not have done it. Hebrews 2:13 "And AGAIN, I will put My trust in Him..."

This kind of hope and expectation is not selfish, but it is for the sake of others...others reaching a higher level of life. Paul said, "death worketh in us, but life in you."

Here we see again the process of a true seed of God...the process of death bringing Resurrection Life.

If Jesus had hope, then He didn'y pay the full price.
At a previous time in His life, yes, He would have known that He could always trust His Father. But at the point of death, when He asked "Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" ,Jesus could not see through the darkness to any future light. As we are to be cast into the outer darkness if we reject Christ's offer of mercy, Jesus also experienced that same darkness, even nature empathised with Him for 3 hours. Hope is the one thing that Chrristian's have that keeps us sane in a world od despair and hopelessness. Without Christ, the wicked perish without hope. That is the wages of sin. If Jesus had hope, He did not pay the full price of our redemption.

The issue is this, and the question I ask of all who deny man's ability to choose is:
Since when has it been an act of love to impose your will upon another, even for their good?

I view this doctrine as one of the most dangerous of all heresies. For it is only a short step to using the verse
Rom 8:29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
in order to claim the right to force your will upon others. "I am doing this to you because God did it to me and what's good for me is good for you" type thinking.

Joh 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.


Read again Rev 13: 15-17.And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


Here we have the dreadful end-time scenario of forced worship upon mankind and the inevitable persecution. A repeat of the mindless persecutions of the dark ages only on a global scale.

"Of all tyrannies a tyrany sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppresive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some time be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their conscience." (C.S.Lewis)

I believe this doctrine makes God to be a tyrant. Again, love can not force or coerce in any way.

Love. What is the essential and most intrinsic nature of love? Is it not self sacrificial giving? This is why Calvary is such a glorious and perfect example of love. By this one act God proved to the universe that Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven was unfounded, unreasonable, and treacherous. Any act of rebellion is a claim of dissatisfaction with the ruling authority, and is by it’s nature a charge of injustice, tyranny, and unfairness against the laws and governing principles of the sovereign. But at Calvary, through His Son Jesus Christ, God proved Satan’s charges wrong. God is love. His entire kingdom is founded on love. All the principles and laws that govern the whole creation reflect the justice, the righteousness, and the love of God. Self sacrificing love.

Satan's way is the way of deceit and force. It is the opposite of love. And the world follows Satan’s example.
Math 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:


These words of Jesus reveal the principles that govern this world. It has been so throughout human history, from Cain to this present day. Principles that are the catalyst for all manner of violence and evil resulting in human misery and suffering. Slavery in all it’s forms. Physical and spiritual. Jesus came to set us free. He came to show that there is another way. To demonstrate the principles that govern the kingdom of God. The principles of love. The principles of voluntary service, not enforced servitude.

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.


If God is love, then He is a gentleman. He has manners. He is polite. He is not intrusive, He does not force us or arbitrarily impose His will upon us in order to establish a loving relationship.

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock... (He doesn’t force the lock, open the door Himself, beat it down, or force it open in any way)
"If any man hears My voice...(not demanding or authoritative, but lovingly endearing)
"and opens the door(we open the door, not God. We choose to open the door or leave it shut)
I will come into him and sup with him, and he with Me."Rev 3:20

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


These are invitations. Not demands. Not orders. They are a proposal of marriage. The gospel is a proposal of marriage. Our relationship with God is like a marriage.

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.


Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.


The gospel is an offer of love. An offer of atonement at-one-ment. Through Calvary God has demonstrated His great love for us. He sends His Holy Spirit to woo us, to convince us of His honourable intentions, in order to convince us to accept His offer of an eternal relationship founded on love. And all through the Scriptures He is directing our attention to Calvary, to the cross of Christ. It is the life and death of Jesus that shows God in the greatest possible light.

When I was dating my wife, I also made sure she saw me in the best possible light, that she would accept my proposal of marriage. I could not force her, although I had certainly chosen her. But she had to choose me in return, and love demanded that she have that freedom of choice, otherwise love is no longer love, but rape. I wanted a wife, not a slave.

God is no different. He seeks a voluntary response of love from His chosen people. He does not force love. That is not in His character. That is not in the nature of love. Force is found only in the character of Satan. Love does not enslave. Love attracts. Love pleads. Love implores. Love entreats. To claim that we are arbitrarily converted without any approval, agreement, or cooperation on our part is a gross distortion of the character of God.

Love not only requires freedom of response, but also freedom to leave. If my wife for any reason chooses to leave, my love for her must allow her that freedom. I would be devastated, yes, heartbroken, yes, and I would plead for her not to go, but I could never ever force her to stay against her will. Neither will God.

For God to impose His will upon us is essentially selfish. It is diametrically opposed to everything that God Himself expressed through Jesus. He gave everything that He had to offer by giving His Son. That is the ultimate in self-sacrificial giving. It would be against His nature after such an act to turn around completely and force His own desires upon unwilling recipients.

If God ever had it in His mind to do as you and many others suggest, then He could have saved the world from immeasurable heartache and suffering by imposing His will upon Adam and Eve and all their offspring and made the entire human race His 'willing' servants.
But the fact that He did not do such a thing is evidence that we indeed have it within ourselves the freedom to choose Him or reject Him.

 

[Drew]

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

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "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 3rdday et al are correct, 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?