The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[mondar]

Oh, not directly with what you said, but interestingly enough the context is the same. When you posted what you did it just made me think of that passage again is all.

There might be some similarities in the context, but it would be a vague comparison concerning God's dealing with the wicked. The context of Ezekiel 18 has to do with the captivity of Israel in Babylon, and that is not in view in Romans 9. Ezekiel was a post-deportation prophet. The background of the text is the statement in the Law in Exodus 20:5. In the 70 year captivity several generations were punished for the sins of the fathers. While there are great differences in the contexts, there are some similarities. In Ezekiel 18 the question is the justice of God in punishing Israel in a multi-generational way during the captivity. The context in Romans 9 has to do with the justice of the election of individual Israelites to covenant blessing and salvation. So both contexts have the justice of God in view.

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,

It was the statement in the law concerning visiting wrath upon future generations that the Jews thought was unjust. Thus the parable in Ezekiel 18:2 concerning the sour grapes....
Eze 18:1 The word of Jehovah came unto me again, saying,
Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
The parable says about the "fathers" eating sour grapes, and the "childrens" teeth being set on edge.

It is funny, because Israel was making the point that the 'proverb' of the sins of the fathers being put onto the sons should be upheld. Why on earth they would want God to impute some sort of judgment because of sins committed by another is beyond me, but I am going to guess it has something to do with jealousy and envy. As if they were 'prideful' that they were the chosen people, and completely disregarded that their fathers sin also.

The proverb is a complaint that the idolatry of the fathers brought God's wrath upon the innocent sons. The rest of the Chapter makes it clear that the sons were not so innocent. The sons were just as guilty as the fathers.

In other words, physical lineage and race has nothing to do with anything. But rather the actions of the individual.

It is true that race has nothing to do with ones salvation or blessing. I do not disagree with the assertion, but, I am not sure that race has anything to do with Ezekiel 18. The fathers referred to are still the same race as the sons in this passage. There are better passages in Galatians 3 that deal with race issues and spiritual blessings.

Eze 18:19-20 "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

In the text you quote above, God states that he is not punishing the son for the sins of the father. The idea is that the sons are sinful also. Yet in their self-righteousness, the felt God was unjust to condemn the sons also. They had blamed the sins on the fathers, and not accepted their own guilt.

If you go back to verse 10, notice that Ezekiel lists the sins of the "Son." See verse 10.
Eze 18:10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth any one of these things,

In verses 11-13 list the sins of the sons. Then in verse 14 the context talks about the son who does not sin before God....
Eze 18:14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins, which he hath done, and feareth, and doeth not such like;
Then the context goes on about the son who does not sin. Then in the verses you quote (19-20) God states his principle of justice. We all bear our own guilt.

The question comes into mind, how does one have 'righteousness'? We know for a fact that;

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.â€
13 “Their throat is pan open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.â€
“The venom of asps is under their lips.â€
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.â€
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.â€
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.â€

Ahhh, now your getting it. What you say above is a major point. The sons were just as guilty as the fathers. The Sons complained that they were righteous and God is unjust for punishing them for the sins of the Fathers by the captivity continuing for 70 years. But under the law, who is righteous? We all offend, we are all guilty, the law condemns, it does not justify. It is the schoolmaster that leads to Christ.

Ezekiel has been laying down the law, and under the law, we are all under a curse.

So then we conclude that righteousness is imparted by God, onto man. Man can do nothing in and of himself to earn or buy this righteousness. But yet, God through Ezekiel, states that if a 'righteous' person turns from his righteousness(which was given to him), then for his sin he will die.

Again, while I would definitely agree that our righteousness is only by imputation from Christ, I dont see that imputed righteousness is the issue in this context. There is nothing but Law in Ezekiel 18. Of course no one can be justified under the law, so there are no righteous sons in Ezekiel 18.

One thing you are right about here is that since there are no righteous sons, this should point to the need for the cross, but the cross is not in view in Ezekiel 18 either.

But, if the wicked person turns from his ways and does what is just and right(faith and trust in Christ), then that wicked person will live.

Faith and trust in Christ is not where these sons are headed. Now in Ezekiels theology, after he establishes the great sinfulness of these sons, he will tell them there only hope. But that is in a different text. For that you must go to Ezekiel 11 or Ezekiel 36. Other texts will present the future blessing of those who are given a heart of flesh, and have their heart of stone taken away. But in Ezekiel 18, all have the heart of stone and are guilty.

The point is that Israel was saying "No way! You are not being fair God! WE are the chosen people. You, God, said that only those who are "Israel" have your forgiveness and blessing. None of those other people can have it."

Well, actually their complaint was that God is not being fair because he is punishing the sons for the sins of the Fathers. It had nothing to do with their hope that "We are the Chosen People."

And yet God is making the point that His grace and forgiveness and call stretches out to all mankind, not just Israel, and the fact that they are being hard hearted toward others is in fact showing their need for a new heart. He makes it abundantly clear in the last verses of chapter 18;


Eze 18:29 Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?


Eze 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.


Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?


Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live."

[/QUOTE]
I must admit, when I saw you quote Ezekiel 18 I suspected that you were going for verse 32 and 36.

The concept of God having no pleasure in killing sinners is at times used by non-Calvinists to tout a universal salvific love for all mankind. Of course in my opinon, that has nothing to do with the context. The passage is a statement that God has no pleasure in punishing his covenant people. But it cannot be disputed, that punish them is exactly what he did, and he did it for his own glory.

 

[savedbygrace57]

God neither Loves all men without exception, nor did Christ die for all men without exception. Many people were made by God to be vessels of wrath and fitted for destruction.

 

[smaller]

God neither Loves all men without exception, nor did Christ die for all men without exception.

Nor do you.

Many people were made by God to be vessels of wrath and fitted for destruction.

What you think you see doesn't even exist.

s

 

[savedbygrace57]

Its foolish to say that God sent His Son to be the Propitiation for the sins of people he purposed them as vessels of wrath and fits them for destruction.

1 jn 4:

10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

rom 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

 

[smaller]

Its foolish to say that God sent His Son to be the Propitiation for the sins of people he purposed them as vessels of wrath and fits them for destruction.

1 jn 4:

10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

rom 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Any 'believer' who is HONEST will come to the conclusion that they HAVE SIN, which same is OF THE DEVIL.

There is the vessel of dishonour upon EVERY man's LUMP.

1 Corinthians 15:43
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

Habakkuk 2:6
Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay!

enjoy!

smaller

 

[HisSheep]

But, and I cannot emphasize this enough" Paul tells us what the "choices" described in the first half of Romans 9 are about. And they are simply not choices about personal salvation. This should not really be a matter of debate, Paul is quite explicit: Esau was not elected to hell, he was elected to serve Jacob. Paul tells us this. Likewise, Jacob was not elected to heaven, he was elected to "dominate" Esau. Again, Paul tell us this.

Similarly for Moses (verse 15) and Pharoah - the "choices" that Paul is describing are clearly not choices about eternal destinies. If we are not willing to take Paul at his word about this, what do we really have to discuss. As I have said before, these examples could be used to then make an argument like this: just as God mades these (non-salvation) choices, so He also makes choices as to who gets saved.

Yes, Drew, this is my view. (The part that I underlined…)

True, these examples given by Paul are not of an eternal nature. The Old Testament doesn’t really address personal salvation, that’s a New Testament concept. Instead it addresses the deliverance of a chosen Nation. In the O.T. world, one “made it†to the “Promised land†by having his posterity arrive there. Here, Paul is bridging the gap between O.T. and N.T. deliverance.

My overall view of the bible is that the O.T. Nation of Israel is analogous of a Christian under the N.T. The whole Nation was chosen. They were delivered from bondage. The whole Nation was “baptized†in the crossing of the Jordan.

The whole Nation was destined to arrive in the Promised Land, but some members of the body must be removed first; the sinful, doubting members like Achan. There was no promise that every Jew would make it to the Promised Land, but surely the Nation would make it – there was never any doubt about that…

Just like a Christian today: They are assured of their destination, but will have to leave their dross, their sinful members, behind in the fire.

Here I think, in Romans 9, Paul is saying, “Look at all the things God has done in His sovereignty. He decided the Easu/Jacob thing according to His own purpose. He determined Pharaoh’s disposition according to His own purpose. Like a potter, He makes all vessels to suit His purpose alone. How difficult is it then to understand that He dispenses (eternal) mercy as fits His purpose as wellâ€

-His Sheep

 

[Drew]

Yes, Drew, this is my view. (The part that I underlined…)

Good - this is at least a reasonable position. I trust you understand that there are those who will insist that, in the first half of Romans 9, Paul is talking about choices God made in respect to eternal destiny. That is simply not tenable. But what you are saying is at least plausible.

Here I think, in Romans 9, Paul is saying, “Look at all the things God has done in His sovereignty. He decided the Easu/Jacob thing according to His own purpose. He determined Pharaoh’s disposition according to His own purpose. Like a potter, He makes all vessels to suit His purpose alone. How difficult is it then to understand that He dispenses (eternal) mercy as fits His purpose as well?”

Fair enough. Here is my version of your statement:

Here I think, in Romans 9, Paul is saying, “Look at all the things God has done in His sovereignty. He decided the Easu/Jacob thing according to His own purpose. He determined Pharaoh’s disposition according to His own purpose. Like a potter, He makes all vessels to suit His purpose alone. Therefore God has hardened the nation of Israel towards the end that all human beings (read: Gentiles as well as Jews) have the possibility of being incorporated into family of God.

As you can see, we still do not agree on the fundamental point Paul is making. If I may presume to speak for you, you see this as an argument about the pre-destination of people to an eternal fate. I see it as an argument how, in God's eternal plan, Israel had to be hardened in order for salvation to be made available to the entire world.

We will no doubt discuss this some more.....

 

[mondar]

Good - this is at least a reasonable position. I trust you understand that there are those who will insist that, in the first half of Romans 9, Paul is talking about choices God made in respect to eternal destiny. That is simply not tenable. But what you are saying is at least plausible.

To HisSheep:
I just wanted to mention the one Drew is talking about here is me. While I agree that there are national or group issues in Romans 9, I do would not say that there are no salvific issues. Drew and I have been through all this repeatedly, and maybe we will once again.... lol.

When I look at verse 3.... It looks like Paul does not have completely non-salvific issues.
3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Also in verse 4.... 4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
I view the covenants and promises as both physical blessings and as spiritual salvific issues. Can anyone contest that the "heart circumcision" in Deuteronomy 30:6 includes salvation in the covenants? When I look at the Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians 3:8, it states that the "Gospel" was preached to Abraham. While the covenants do include non-salvation issues, they cannot be divorced from salvation issues.

In 9:23 the texts says....... " and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory," Can God speak of the "riches of his glory" and this is not salvific? The riches of his glory prepared afore!

In 9:27 the text says... " 27 And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved:"
This is Pauls OT support. Paul puts the word "saved." Now you could go back to the OT quote and try to establish that the word "sozo" only refers to a phyisical deliverance, but it is in the context of Isaiah 7-11 and the coming of the Messiah. So then, would you say that the coming of the Messiah was for physical blessings only?

Election or "calling" is unto salvation. Notice in 2 Thes how the term is connected directly with salvation. In this context there it can only be spiritual salvation.
13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Also, Drew must see Romans as a much more disconnected book. He will emphasize any discontinuity between Romans 8 and Romans 9. Who can read the "Golden chain" in Romans 8:28-29 and not see spiritual salvation...
29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

So in my view, Paul has been talking about justification (salvation) by faith alone in the first 8 chapters of Romans, and he is not suddenly no longer talking about salvation. He is still addressing the issue of salvation, but is now moving to salvation related to some Israelite issues.

 

[Nathan]

There might be some similarities in the context, but it would be a vague comparison concerning God's dealing with the wicked. The context of Ezekiel 18 has to do with the captivity of Israel in Babylon, and that is not in view in Romans 9. Ezekiel was a post-deportation prophet. The background of the text is the statement in the Law in Exodus 20:5. In the 70 year captivity several generations were punished for the sins of the fathers. While there are great differences in the contexts, there are some similarities. In Ezekiel 18 the question is the justice of God in punishing Israel in a multi-generational way during the captivity. The context in Romans 9 has to do with the justice of the election of individual Israelites to covenant blessing and salvation. So both contexts have the justice of God in view.

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,

It was the statement in the law concerning visiting wrath upon future generations that the Jews thought was unjust. Thus the parable in Ezekiel 18:2 concerning the sour grapes....
Eze 18:1 The word of Jehovah came unto me again, saying,
Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
The parable says about the "fathers" eating sour grapes, and the "childrens" teeth being set on edge.


The proverb is a complaint that the idolatry of the fathers brought God's wrath upon the innocent sons. The rest of the Chapter makes it clear that the sons were not so innocent. The sons were just as guilty as the fathers.


It is true that race has nothing to do with ones salvation or blessing. I do not disagree with the assertion, but, I am not sure that race has anything to do with Ezekiel 18. The fathers referred to are still the same race as the sons in this passage. There are better passages in Galatians 3 that deal with race issues and spiritual blessings.


In the text you quote above, God states that he is not punishing the son for the sins of the father. The idea is that the sons are sinful also. Yet in their self-righteousness, the felt God was unjust to condemn the sons also. They had blamed the sins on the fathers, and not accepted their own guilt.

If you go back to verse 10, notice that Ezekiel lists the sins of the "Son." See verse 10.
Eze 18:10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth any one of these things,

In verses 11-13 list the sins of the sons. Then in verse 14 the context talks about the son who does not sin before God....
Eze 18:14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins, which he hath done, and feareth, and doeth not such like;
Then the context goes on about the son who does not sin. Then in the verses you quote (19-20) God states his principle of justice. We all bear our own guilt.


Ahhh, now your getting it. What you say above is a major point. The sons were just as guilty as the fathers. The Sons complained that they were righteous and God is unjust for punishing them for the sins of the Fathers by the captivity continuing for 70 years. But under the law, who is righteous? We all offend, we are all guilty, the law condemns, it does not justify. It is the schoolmaster that leads to Christ.

Ezekiel has been laying down the law, and under the law, we are all under a curse.



Again, while I would definitely agree that our righteousness is only by imputation from Christ, I dont see that imputed righteousness is the issue in this context. There is nothing but Law in Ezekiel 18. Of course no one can be justified under the law, so there are no righteous sons in Ezekiel 18.

One thing you are right about here is that since there are no righteous sons, this should point to the need for the cross, but the cross is not in view in Ezekiel 18 either.


Faith and trust in Christ is not where these sons are headed. Now in Ezekiels theology, after he establishes the great sinfulness of these sons, he will tell them there only hope. But that is in a different text. For that you must go to Ezekiel 11 or Ezekiel 36. Other texts will present the future blessing of those who are given a heart of flesh, and have their heart of stone taken away. But in Ezekiel 18, all have the heart of stone and are guilty.


Well, actually their complaint was that God is not being fair because he is punishing the sons for the sins of the Fathers. It had nothing to do with their hope that "We are the Chosen People."




I must admit, when I saw you quote Ezekiel 18 I suspected that you were going for verse 32 and 36.

The concept of God having no pleasure in killing sinners is at times used by non-Calvinists to tout a universal salvific love for all mankind. Of course in my opinon, that has nothing to do with the context. The passage is a statement that God has no pleasure in punishing his covenant people. But it cannot be disputed, that punish them is exactly what he did, and he did it for his own glory.

lol. With all due respect, you have completely missed the point and are chopping up my post taking it out of context.

#1. The point of Ezekiel 18 was Israel is making a statement concerning the grace of God should not be given unto the people who are not of their lineage. They make the most idiotic statement without understanding what it is they are saying. 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? They are saying, "hey God, why don't these people suffer because of their fathers sin. You said..... So why shouldn't the son suffer for the sins of their fathers?".

All the while not realizing that their fathers were sinners too, and that God is not an respecter of persons, but rather all souls are His. They were in essence pronouncing judgment on others, thinking they were in right standing because of their lineage.

#2. Ezekiel 18 stops at verse 32 and does not have a verse 36.


Mondar, what this passage in Ezekiel states is that regardless of Nationality, race, gender, lineage, generation, time, space, and matter; that God does not delight in the death of the wicked. And more importantly, it tells us that when a righteous person, who can only be righteous by Gods grace, turns away from his righteousness, he will die. That is to say that even those who have been "called" can indeed turn away from their gift of righteousness, and therefore be blotted out of the book.

But it also means that those who are wicked, can turn to God and be saved through His righteousness. God makes the point, not Ezekiel's theology, that each individual has sin, and it is dealt with on an individual basis. Not a generational, not a lineage, not a nationality, not anything. But each individual has a chance for righteousness and unrighteousness. That is what God professes through Ezekiel's message.

If you want to chop this post up, that is fine, but there is not getting around the truth that Jesus Christ is God, and that He offers His sacrifice to all men WITHOUT exception. The point in Ezekiel 18 is that Israel, God's covenant people, were idiotically pronouncing judgment on themselves. Which is the reason for all the question marks. They were taking issue with God that He was not destroying the 'other' nations because of the sins of their fathers. They were saying that God was not being 'just' because instead of destroying the other nation, He was using them to enslave Israel.

"Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

Eze 18:29-30 "Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin."

 

[Nathan]

This might give better insight to the problem that Israel was having with blindness as to who God is and what He desires.

Jer 5:11 For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have been utterly treacherous to me, declares the LORD.


Jer 5:12 They have spoken falsely of the LORD and have said, 'He will do nothing; no disaster will come upon us, nor shall we see sword or famine.


Jer 5:13 The prophets will become wind; the word is not in them. Thus shall it be done to them!'"


Jer 5:14 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of hosts: "Because you have spoken this word, behold, I am making my words in your mouth a fire, and this people wood, and the fire shall consume them.


Jer 5:15 Behold, I am bringing against you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, declares the LORD. It is an enduring nation; it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.


Jer 5:16 Their quiver is like an open tomb; they are all mighty warriors.


Jer 5:17 They shall eat up your harvest and your food; they shall eat up your sons and your daughters; they shall eat up your flocks and your herds; they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees; your fortified cities in which you trust they shall beat down with the sword."


Jer 5:18 "But even in those days, declares the LORD, I will not make a full end of you.


Jer 5:19 And when your people say, 'Why has the LORD our God done all these things to us?' you shall say to them, 'As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a land that is not yours.'"

Sometimes it takes a lot of heartache to come to grasps that God not only loves you, but He loves others as well. The hardest obstacle to overcome is pride. But when you overcome pride, you see and taste that the Lord is good, abounding in mercy, love and kindness He gives to all. Oh how sweet is the water that flows from His presence, how marvelous are His works, how awesome is His faithfulness, how great is He love for all His creation.

 

[smaller]

Sometimes it takes a lot of heartache to come to grasps that God not only loves you, but He loves others as well. The hardest obstacle to overcome is pride. But when you overcome pride, you see and taste that the Lord is good, abounding in mercy, love and kindness He gives to all. Oh how sweet is the water that flows from His presence, how marvelous are His works, how awesome is His faithfulness, how great is He love for all His creation.

If you really believe that, then AMEN to that heart of God in you.

s

 

[HisSheep]

....So in my view, Paul has been talking about justification (salvation) by faith alone in the first 8 chapters of Romans, and he is not suddenly no longer talking about salvation. He is still addressing the issue of salvation, but is now moving to salvation related to some Israelite issues.

Yes, Mondar. Yes on all points. In my view, it is a general theme of justification by faith (the role of sin, grace, etc…) up ‘till 8:18. From that point through Chapter 11 is a general theme of God’s sovereignty in election – demonstrated by His historical sovereignty in all other matters (personal salvation wasn't an O.T. feature). This is exactly why the “Israelite issues†come up here; they are other examples of God’s ultimate control.

After that, from Chapter 12 on, Paul tells us, “Here is how the Christian rightly responds.†Or, to borrow Schaeffer's title, "How Then Shall We Live?"

Seen this way, Romans is especially beautiful. And it cements the analogy of National Israel for an individual Christian, a correlation too consistent and strong for me to deny. Israel was chosen by God despite its size, ability, or worth. It did not have a choice in its election; it did not need to “accept the offerâ€. Paul demonstrates a pattern which is consistent with God’s character. It is exactly how he delivers His people today.

-HisSheep

 

[Drew]

I just wanted to mention the one Drew is talking about here is me.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe that, like both me and HS, you also agree that the examples given in the first half of Romans 9 are not examples of election to an eternal fate. So I am definitely not placing you in the camp of those who adopt the manifestly untenable position that these are examples of election unto an eternal destiny.

While I agree that there are national or group issues in Romans 9, I do would not say that there are no salvific issues. Drew and I have been through all this repeatedly, and maybe we will once again.... lol.

I, too, think that there are indeed "personal salvation" issues on the table in Romans 9.

I view the covenants and promises as both physical blessings and as spiritual salvific issues. Can anyone contest that the "heart circumcision" in Deuteronomy 30:6 includes salvation in the covenants? When I look at the Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians 3:8, it states that the "Gospel" was preached to Abraham. While the covenants do include non-salvation issues, they cannot be divorced from salvation issues.

I do not think that I would dispute any of the above.

In 9:23 the texts says....... " and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory," Can God speak of the "riches of his glory" and this is not salvific? The riches of his glory prepared afore!

In 9:27 the text says... " 27 And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved:"
This is Pauls OT support. Paul puts the word "saved." Now you could go back to the OT quote and try to establish that the word "sozo" only refers to a phyisical deliverance, but it is in the context of Isaiah 7-11 and the coming of the Messiah. So then, would you say that the coming of the Messiah was for physical blessings only?

Again, I have never denied that there are salvation issues on the table in Romans 9. Or if I wrote anything that suggested otherwise, I must have chosen my words carelessly.

Election or "calling" is unto salvation.

Here I disagree, if, indeed, you are asserting that the word "election", as a word unto itself, necessarily is focused on the specific matter of personal salvation. Election means "choice" in the more general sense.

Also, Drew must see Romans as a much more disconnected book.

Not at all. I suggest that my take on Romans involves seeing it as a more harminious integrated whole than I suspect that your take does. That doesn't necessarily settle things, but I most certainly dispute any suggestion that my take on Romans entails commitment to internal disconnection in the letter.

He will emphasize any discontinuity between Romans 8 and Romans 9.

Well the texts speak for themselves. In Romans 8, there is substantially no "Israel" question on the table. And Romans 9 is all about Israel. So I think the text itself supprts the notion that, in 9 to 11, Paul leaves his treatment of the state of the Christian, and returns to a question the careful reader will have: If all these blessings in chapters 5 to 8 are now given to the Jew + Gentile church, what about all those promises God made to ethnic Israel.

And Romans 9 to 11 is, I suggest, Paul's full dress treatment of how Israel and the Gentiles have been brough together in purposes of God. Sure, salvation is in view here, but I think there is a clear "break" in subject matter at the end of chapter 8. In fact, I can argue that, in Romans 9, Paul picks up the three questions he raised at the beginning of chapter 3. So the fact that I see a discontinuity between 8 and 9 is not a denial of connectedness. Quite the contrary, I see Romans has having a spiral structure, with material in Romans 9 giving full-dress treatment to material addressed in miniature in Romans 3.

 

[Drew]

On the matter of the connection of Romans 9 to the Israel questions raised in Romans. Sorry for the small size of the text. I will post more explanatory material shortly.

 

[Drew]

Post 1 in a series re the connection between Romans 3 and Romans 9:

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.

 

[Drew]

Post 2 in a series re the connection between Romans 3 and Romans 9:

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. 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 Israelfocus 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€. 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?.

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.

 

[Drew]

Post 3 in a series on the connection between Romans 3 and Romans 9:

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 wrath—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 “no”:

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?

 

[tig]

Another popular Myth in the religious world today, is the Jesus Christ died or gave His Life for everyone in the world without exception, but the problem with that, is there is not one shred of scripture evidence that states that.


For surely the children of the devil Jn 8:44 cannot be of His Sheep, His Church, or His People.

So why does the religous world proclaim that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception, when they have no scripture proof ? Because it is a Myth.

Actually, the bible does state that Christ died for all. Such as 1 Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And the famous Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...

The world that God loved is the world of mankind whom he gave his only begotten Son for.

Or: 1 Thess 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

8But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

9For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

10Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

The "us" that Christ died for is not only those who are of the day, but also those who are of the night.

One can be saved now and Christ can give them life if they believe his simple message of truth about who God is (our Father), who we are ( his children), and what we are (spirit). Most do not know or believe this truth, so they are damned to believe a lie.

John 5: 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

Here, you have a wonderful statement. There is something the Father does, he raiseth up the dead. There is something JC does, he gives life to whom he will.

This is the scenerio, here, on this earth, you have the saved and the lost, the saved and the damned, the saved and those who are still perishing. But, in reality, we are all the sons of God, those who believe it now on this earth, are the first fruits, those to whom it is to be revealed, are the vessels of destruction, but they too shall come to know the truth of who God is, who they are, and what they are...but this doesn't happen until the second coming of JC at the decease of each of them when God raises them up.

JC gives life to the sheep here on the earth, God gives life to the goats (or dead) at their decease.

God is impartial, he loves all his children and no one will be lost after this life. This life is where one is saved or lost, afterward, we all go back to God who is our Father.

1 jn 2: 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

Can't get any clearer than that. God promised it, we all get it.

Or, when Paul was preaching to the idol worshippers at Mar's hill, he said: Acts 17: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Christ's resurrection from the dead has given assurance unto all men, not just some. We are all the offspring of God, and what son is he whom the Father will ban eternally in a firey torment?

 

[smaller]

SBG57 has no reactions to God burning alive forever His Own children OR offspring.

He'll see the light soon enough.

 

[Free]

God promised it, we all get it.

If this is UR doctrine, which it appears to be, it stops here. It is false and against the TOS to be discussed.



Jesus died for everyone, however, the only ones who will be saved are those who believe this and make him Lord.

1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (NKJV)

If God desires all men to be saved, then Jesus died for all men, without exception or else this statement self-destructs.