Christian Forums

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

What is Election?

No, I believe at whatever point in time God determines that person is accountable,and they are committing sin, with malice of forethought, they deserve to be judged.
Of course, I am of your same view. I simply wanted to establish the conclusion that at that point that I was referring to, there was absolutely no denying that man deserved to be condemned - though such a man might have been found guilty and been brought under such condemnation much earlier, when he had chosen to sin.

Two verses does not answer is question, especially when taken out of context from a teaching that is not about individuals peoples election. To understand this teaching one must understand what's going on in the OT.
The context for Rom 9:14-15, begins before the 9th chapter itself - which is why I've summarized all the chapters leading to the 9th. The core doctrines(apart from many more important ones) handled in the first 8 chapters are - "justification apart from the Law" , "justification and life by grace, through faith in Christ Jesus" and "adoption as children and the consequent assured hope of final glorification".

Rom 1 - All those practicing ungodliness and unrighteousness openly even though they knew God, made evident within them, deserve God's wrath.
Rom 2 - All those who judge the above group but are themselves just the same in action, deserve God's wrath too - for it is not the expressed intent but the doers of the Law who are found Just. The gentiles have the law written in their hearts. The Jew is found a transgressor of the Law given to him.
Rom 3 - From the above, All the world is found guilty before God under the Law. Therefore, man is justified by faith, apart from the Law.
Rom 4 - Examples to support Rom 3 justification by faith, apart from the law.
Rom 5 - The Law was given to reveal sin - but grace abounds much more over sin. Therein, man is now no longer under the law(further supporting Rom 3 justification apart from the Law) - but under grace.
Rom 6 - Disproving anticipated erroneous implications raised against the above Rom 5.
Rom 7:1-6 - Final evidences and conclusion that man is now indeed justified apart from the Law.
Rom 7:7-25 - Disproving anticipated erroneous implications raised against the above. Man is now justified apart from the Law not because the law is sinful (the Law is of the Spirit and is holy) - but because man is sinful, in the flesh.
Rom 8:1-13 - Therefore, apart from the Law and sinful flesh - man(in the spirit) is justified(no longer condemned) and has life in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:14-17 - The Glorious result of the above - adoption as children, where man is an heir of God and a fellow heir with Christ - through suffering unto the final glorification.
Rom 8:18-39 - Manifold assurances of and reasons for - the definite realization of the above hope - as children of God, unto their final glorification .

So, let us begin Rom 9 where we ended Rom 8 - with the manifold assurances of the final glorification, being the children of God. As is the pattern, this chapter deals with disproving anticipated erroneous implications against the preceding points made. What is the anticipated erroneous implication/objection?

If Paul's fellow Israelites received the above promises and adoption as children of God(Rom 9:4) - but are now accursed from Christ (Rom 9:3) - does it not nullify God's promised word and all the assurances of Rom 8:18-39?

Can you see the significance of this implication/objection? Paul painstakingly writes Rom 8:18-39 to assure his intended readers(most probably gentiles, given that they're Romans) of their hope of final glorification, as children of God - but these readers then could point to his fellow Israelites(also children of God) and their current state of being accursed from Christ inspite of the same promises and assurances to Israel - and applying that scenario to themselves, they could question the very validity of such assurances and promises from God in Rom 8:18-39.

So, Paul has to clarify what happened with respect to his fellow Israelites, upholding God's promised word and assurances - so that these readers can then apply the same scenario to themselves in confidence.

Here begins Paul's defense with a declaration refuting the above objection -
Rom 9:6a - Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect...

And the reason follows -
Rom 9:6b .....For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

So Paul's line of argument is that God's assurances and promised word to His children have Never failed. He simply clarifies that not all the people of Israelite origin are children of God, rather only a subset of all these people make up the actual "Israel" - which can lay claim to the promises and assurances, as the children of God.

That might have seemed quite convenient of Paul to sidestep an objection, by introducing seemingly new concepts - unless he is able to back this with Scriptural evidence that there indeed is a subset selected that the promises are made applicable to.

Paul presents Rom 9:7-9 - showing not all are children of God just because of fleshly descent - rather, only a subset who are covered by God's promises(example cited here is the Gen 21:12 promise) are children of God.

He further presents Rom 9:10-13 to bolster the same point, with the additional information that God's selection of these subsets is not based on anything done by the recipients, rather is in accordance to His own purposes in selecting such subsets.

Let's pause here and take stock of the argument so far - Paul's reader is talking about the Israelites being accursed from Christ(Rom 9:3) inspite of the same God's promised word to him - and applying that to himself, he wants to see if he can be assured against a similar fate. And Paul clarifies, paralleling Scriptural evidences in Isaac and Jacob, that God's Word has never failed with the 'real/actual' Israelites who are part of the selected subset to be covered by God's promises. This seems to have validated Rom 8:18-39 and the reader's confidence in what he hopes, as an heir/child of God.

But the reader then probably jumps the gun and starts applying Paul's paralleling Scriptural evidences to his own scenario of concerns over final glorification(salvation unto the end) - leading to the inference that the selection of the current subset of people(jew and gentile) too as children of God is not based on anything done by the recipients, rather is in accordance to His own purposes in selecting such subsets - and the reader understandably objects in Rom 9:14.

If this were not to be meant so, Paul could have easily disarmed the objection by stating - "Hey, that was only a paralleling illustration on the fact that God does select subsets according to His purposes - and it so happened that in Jacob's and Esau's case, God chose the subset before they were even born, independent of what they were to do - but that doesn't lend itself to application in our core argument - because here, though God does still select subsets, it's not completely independent of what we do" - and the argument ends there. Simple, right?

But what does Paul do - he defends the argument by talking about mercy! Where is the need to talk about mercy if it were meant to be applied only to Jacob and Esau - and Jacob's selection into the subset independent of what either of them were to do? Paul has done the improbable - he actually has pre-empted the Rom 9:14 objection arising out of a parallel application of Rom 9:11 to the reader's own selection and salvation - and he responds to that in his defense of Rom 9:15.

And this is why I presented these 2 verses, Rom 9:14,15 to contextually answer your queries on this. As it is, this post is quite verbose, so I'll stop here - please share what you find to be illogical or inconsistent in this so far.
 
Looks like I've got a lot of posts to catch up on. Prolly won't touch the OSAS posts (much), but it demonstrates how OSAS gains it's strength from thinking that even the 'work' of believing belongs in Paul's works that we are not allowed to do to be justified by. That is hardly what Paul is teaching.

But anyway, ivDavid can save a lot of time by just explaining how God can want all men to be saved but pre-program most of mankind ahead of time to not believe and be damned. Predetermined election is completely contrary to other plain scripture. It's another example of an erroneous doctrine in the church that is the result of not rightly dividing the Word of God.

The doctrine Chopper endorses fixes this problem by saying the predetermined elect is only a very small number of people who believe, with no choice possible to not believe, for the purpose of representing the gospel. The problems I see with that are 1) it makes various passages of Paul's letters written expressly to this elect, not the rest of us, but which clearly are written to the rest of us. And 2) a predetermined elect is an untested elect. They would be the only group of people in all of God's kingdom (besides children and the disabled), including Jesus himself, the chief representative of the gospel sent into the world, that are not tested and given the choice to obey or not to obey. Again, a doctrine developed without the whole counsel of scripture taken into consideration.


I knew the subject of 'faith' would not go over pretty well. The church instantly thinks 'regeneration' when they think of a person coming under the power of faith. And this is complicated by the church's propensity for over-thinking things and labeling every avenue of thought with a special name. But it's really quite simple:

A person has no capacity to know about or understand the truths of the gospel. God speaks to them by the Holy Spirit the truth they can't comprehend in their own selves. They are then able to know what is true and make a decision for or against the gospel. Most reject the gospel and God eventually removes the voice and power of his Holy Spirit to know the truth and choose the gospel. The very essence of faith is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking truth. You don't have to be saved to have the Holy Spirit speaking faith into your heart so you can accept the truth about Jesus and be saved. In fact he HAS to do that in order for a person to be saved. God gives us faith so we can believe the truth and be saved. Most reject that message of faith, in effect calling God a liar, as John says.
 
But anyway, ivDavid can save a lot of time by just explaining how God can want all men to be saved but pre-program most of mankind ahead of time to not believe and be damned.
I can't explain something I don't believe as true. As to what I actually believe, they're already expressed through the posts on this thread. As to how my beliefs have gotten associated with this above statement - I am willing to know about and clarify.
 
Hi ivdavid,

I've got a question. It appears you've included Gentiles in this subset. If that is the case can you tell me on what basis you've done that?
Hi. Well, since my post was constructed from the perspective of the intended reader of Paul's letter to the Romans - I assumed that some, if not most, of the Romans would be non-jews(gentiles). Does it have any bearing on something important?
 
Hi. Well, since my post was constructed from the perspective of the intended reader of Paul's letter to the Romans - I assumed that some, if not most, of the Romans would be non-jews(gentiles). Does it have any bearing on something important?

Hi ivDavid,

Actually, I deleted the post I guess you replied before I got it deleted. However, I do think looking at who Paul is addressing bears significantly on ort understanding of the passage. In this section of Romans Paul is addressing Jewish believers. He begins in chapter 2 addressing the Jewish believers and continues his discourse through chapter 11. Paul said, they are not all Israel who are of Israel. Who ever this Israel is, they are all from Israel (Jacob). Not of his offspring are of this subset but all of this subset are of Israel (descendants of Jacob).
 
Last edited:
Allen, Thank you for this thread. Not many are willing to discuss election because it's so confusing. It does not have to be that way at all. The theology of election is explained in the entire Chapter of Romans nine. In order to understand election, one has to study the entire Chapter.

The key Verse is v.27. "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved". The mystery of a remnant answers the mystery of election. God has always had a remnant of followers of His divine ways. God chooses the ones who will be His followers! He does not choose everyone, only a few. Why election? Why does He choose certain people in every generation? Good question!

Before the foundation of the world, we are told in various parts of Scripture, God chooses certain people to love Him and obey, as much as possible, His ways, commandments, Laws and so forth. You see, in every generation, God needs these "believers" to represent Him. They are the ones who will show what God is like and how mankind should live in a wicked world they live in. The "chosen" or "elect" are God's representatives born in a generation of His choice. This means that you were not born in an earlier time or a later time, you were born in this generation! He needs you to show your family, friends, workers, etc. who God is. And perhaps they will want to believe in the God you represent.

Now we come to everyone else, outside of His remnant of elect believers. They are not called to be a part of the chosen remnant, but are called to be believers in Jesus through your testimony. There is a call to Salvation that goes out through you because God is not willing that any perish, right? Guess what? You will always be a messenger of the Good News. Their Salvation is our mission. God has gifted every one of the chosen to reach our sphere of influence for Jesus. Salvation then, is their responsibility whether they will accept the free gift of Salvation or not.

I hope this helps.
That is the best explanation of election and free will that I have ever seen. It is something that I struggle with all the time. The elect are have a great blessing but also a great responsibility. Here is an issue that I have had with it for years. Ephesians Chapter 2 talks about how we are "dead in trespasses and sins" and "God Made us alive together with Christ." So we are spiritually dead until the Holy Spirit works in us and quickens our spirit is what that scripture is saying right. But God is not willing that any should perish. Does the Holy Spirit work within everyone and they have the choice or does He only work with a certain few and He has the choice? That's always been my question, always will be. I am just happy that He choose me and I know what He called me to do something. I leave the rest in His capable hands. I will have the answer to my conundrum when I get to heaven if it matters then.
 
He begins in chapter 2 addressing the Jewish believers and continues his discourse through chapter 11.
The form of argument necessitates it in Chapter 2 - and I am inclined to believe that the addressing of the Jew begins only from v.17 there. Rom 2:1 seems to be addressing the rest who don't fit into the Rom 1 nor the Jewish groups - in order to conclude everyone under sin. But yes, all the parts concerning Paul's refutation of being under the law carries most relevance to the jews. The letter however seems addressed to a mixed group given verses like Rom 11:13.

Who ever this Israel is, they are all from Israel (Jacob). Not all of his offspring are of this subset but all of this subset are of Israel (descendants of Jacob).
Again, since the argument specifically has at its object, God's dealing with the Israelites(offspring of Jacob) - Rom 9:6 refers to the 'real' Israel who too are descendants of Jacob. But the argument posed is to extrapolate and apply(to either jew or gentile) these principles found in God's dealing with the Israelites - so as to be assured of God's dealing with the Spiritual Israelites(jew and gentile) now.

However, I do think looking at who Paul is addressing bears significantly on our understanding of the passage.
As of now, I cannot see the effect of this distinction - perhaps, when you're free, you could elaborate on this.
 
That is the best explanation of election and free will that I have ever seen. It is something that I struggle with all the time. The elect are have a great blessing but also a great responsibility. Here is an issue that I have had with it for years. Ephesians Chapter 2 talks about how we are "dead in trespasses and sins" and "God Made us alive together with Christ." So we are spiritually dead until the Holy Spirit works in us and quickens our spirit is what that scripture is saying right. But God is not willing that any should perish. Does the Holy Spirit work within everyone and they have the choice or does He only work with a certain few and He has the choice? That's always been my question, always will be. I am just happy that He choose me and I know what He called me to do something. I leave the rest in His capable hands. I will have the answer to my conundrum when I get to heaven if it matters then.

Hi Sandy,

It's not a conundrum, it's a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election that causes the confusion. People think that God is choosing individuals to be saved and that is not the case at all. In Romans 9 Paul is addressing the Jewish believers at Rome and is explaining his statement in Romans 8:28, how God has worked all things for good to those who love Him. He explains how God chose Abraham and made certain promises to him. Then he explains how God has gone about fulfilling those promises through Isaac, Jacob, and others of His choosing. The importance of God doing the choosing is not about salvation, it's about making certain that no one can claim any hand in bringing about the promises that God made to Abraham. There is nothing in Romans 9 stating that God chooses some people to be saved and other to be lost. It is applying this chapter to the issue of salvation that causes the confusion. The ultimate end of the promises to Abraham do bear on salvation but that is not the argument that Paul is making in Romans 9. I'd be happy to address this with you and answer any questions that I can.
 
In Romans 9, Paul is not addressing Jews only. Otherwise he would not have said....
"24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?"
If words have meaning (and they do), and especially the word "Gentiles" in that verse, then Paul is not addressing the Jews only.
 
Hi again my Sister, You have a good understanding about a child's dea
That is the best explanation of election and free will that I have ever seen. It is something that I struggle with all the time. The elect are have a great blessing but also a great responsibility. Here is an issue that I have had with it for years. Ephesians Chapter 2 talks about how we are "dead in trespasses and sins" and "God Made us alive together with Christ." So we are spiritually dead until the Holy Spirit works in us and quickens our spirit is what that scripture is saying right. But God is not willing that any should perish. Does the Holy Spirit work within everyone and they have the choice or does He only work with a certain few and He has the choice? That's always been my question, always will be. I am just happy that He choose me and I know what He called me to do something. I leave the rest in His capable hands. I will have the answer to my conundrum when I get to heaven if it matters then.

Hello again my dear Sister, God loves every single person who comes into this world. His love for these people is a love that you and I know nothing about, it is deep and so desirous of His gifts and love that He sends out the Holy Spirit to convince every person that they need to trust in His beloved Son and spend eternity in a place He has prepared. He has gifted you with the Gospel, which in itself has great power to help the unsaved come to Him through your testimony. So to answer your conundrum, God gives everyone a choice, He forces no one, even the elect. He sends out an irresistible call to the elect, where He does not to everyone outside the elect. But, His call to everyone else, God has put great power in the message of the Gospel.
 
The form of argument necessitates it in Chapter 2 - and I am inclined to believe that the addressing of the Jew begins only from v.17 there. Rom 2:1 seems to be addressing the rest who don't fit into the Rom 1 nor the Jewish groups - in order to conclude everyone under sin. But yes, all the parts concerning Paul's refutation of being under the law carries most relevance to the jews. The letter however seems addressed to a mixed group given verses like Rom 11:13.

I agree that the letter in general is top the Church in Rome as whole (Jew and Gentile). However, Paul does address each group separately in the letter. As you pointed out verse 17 of chapter 2 begins his address to the Jewish believers. In Chapter 11 verse 13 he turns his attention to the Gentiles.


Again, since the argument specifically has at its object, God's dealing with the Israelites(offspring of Jacob) - Rom 9:6 refers to the 'real' Israel who too are descendants of Jacob. But the argument posed is to extrapolate and apply(to either jew or gentile) these principles found in God's dealing with the Israelites - so as to be assured of God's dealing with the Spiritual Israelites(jew and gentile) now.

I agree that Paul's overall argument would eventually apply to Jew and Gentile. However, I'd suggest that his argument in Romans 9 is dealing with specific events in history which refer to His fulfilling His promises to Abraham, not to eople being saved.


As of now, I cannot see the effect of this distinction - perhaps, when you're free, you could elaborate on this.

His argument would be relative to the Jews. It's not likely that his Gentile readers would fully grasp his argument not having the historical understanding that the Jews had.
 
In Romans 9, Paul is not addressing Jews only. Otherwise he would not have said....
"24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?"
If words have meaning (and they do), and especially the word "Gentiles" in that verse, then Paul is not addressing the Jews only.

He is, just look at the passage. Just because he says the word Gentiles doesn't mean he's addressing them. He's simply telling his Jewish readers that there have been those of the Gentiles who have been called also. Abraham was a Gentile as was Isaac.
 
It is applying this chapter[Romans 9] to the issue of salvation that causes the confusion.
Rom 9 is Paul's defense to an objection that God's word has failed(Rom 9:6) with respect to his fellow Israelites who are now "accursed from Christ" (Rom 9:3). And Paul is eager to defend against this objection because the very assurance of God's word is at threat now. The objection raised is -
"how can we be assured of the hope of glorification, as children of God [Rom 8:17,24] - if Paul's fellow Israelites, also supposedly children of God having the same promises(Rom 9:4), are now accursed from Christ?"
How is this not pertaining to salvation?

Besides, Rom 9:14-15 is the response to the pre-empted implications of Rom 9:11-13. What implications could have arisen, for Paul to allude to God's sovereign mercy - given that Jacob was elected irrespective of what either of them were to do?
 
Hi Sandy,

It's not a conundrum, it's a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election that causes the confusion. People think that God is choosing individuals to be saved and that is not the case at all. In Romans 9 Paul is addressing the Jewish believers at Rome and is explaining his statement in Romans 8:28, how God has worked all things for good to those who love Him. He explains how God chose Abraham and made certain promises to him. Then he explains how God has gone about fulfilling those promises through Isaac, Jacob, and others of His choosing. The importance of God doing the choosing is not about salvation, it's about making certain that no one can claim any hand in bringing about the promises that God made to Abraham. There is nothing in Romans 9 stating that God chooses some people to be saved and other to be lost. It is applying this chapter to the issue of salvation that causes the confusion. The ultimate end of the promises to Abraham do bear on salvation but that is not the argument that Paul is making in Romans 9. I'd be happy to address this with you and answer any questions that I can.
Hi again my Sister, You have a good understanding about a child's dea


Hello again my dear Sister, God loves every single person who comes into this world. His love for these people is a love that you and I know nothing about, it is deep and so desirous of His gifts and love that He sends out the Holy Spirit to convince every person that they need to trust in His beloved Son and spend eternity in a place He has prepared. He has gifted you with the Gospel, which in itself has great power to help the unsaved come to Him through your testimony. So to answer your conundrum, God gives everyone a choice, He forces no one, even the elect. He sends out an irresistible call to the elect, where He does not to everyone outside the elect. But, His call to everyone else, God has put great power in the message of the Gospel.
Hi again my Sister, You have a good understanding about a child's dea


Hello again my dear Sister, God loves every single person who comes into this world. His love for these people is a love that you and I know nothing about, it is deep and so desirous of His gifts and love that He sends out the Holy Spirit to convince every person that they need to trust in His beloved Son and spend eternity in a place He has prepared. He has gifted you with the Gospel, which in itself has great power to help the unsaved come to Him through your testimony. So to answer your conundrum, God gives everyone a choice, He forces no one, even the elect. He sends out an irresistible call to the elect, where He does not to everyone outside the elect. But, His call to everyone else, God has put great power in the message of the Gospel.
Just to clarify, I am not trying to argue with you only understand. I know the love of God, I have felt it, at least as much of it as my body could take. It changed my life. I know how much he loves this world and wants to see people come to saving knowledge, but I have also felt His wrath. God is love, but He also has other emotions. Who is sovereign then God or man? In this explanation it looks like man is sovereign. Does man have the power to thwart God's plan? Man has a will, but it is rarely free. Look at all the influence that corporations have on us with advertising and our government with the news media. Our will is influenced. Are you saying that God loves us but he never influences our will? Just His love alone influences us. Did he love Pharaoh or Judas? It doesn't seem like He did. It says in Exodus 10:20 that the Lord hardened the heart of pharaoh. God choose Judas to be close to him to accomplish a plan and he choose Pharaoh to be Pharaoh at the time he needed to let the people go. My best explanation is God has a plan and He can use who He wants when He wants and however He wants to accomplish that plan. I also believe that sometimes people will not follow the plan that God has for their lives, but His overall plan will go forth. He is sovereign within His plan, but the players are changeable because He did give us a will. That's the beauty and strength of God, he can use fallible beings to carry out His plan, and even though they fail, the plan will go forth. I have seen this time and time again. God has a plan for something, someone fails, but then someone else steps in and it succeeds.
 
Rom 9 is Paul's defense to an objection that God's word has failed(Rom 9:6) with respect to his fellow Israelites who are now "accursed from Christ" (Rom 9:3). And Paul is eager to defend against this objection because the very assurance of God's word is at threat now. The objection raised is -
"how can we be assured of the hope of glorification, as children of God [Rom 8:17,24] - if Paul's fellow Israelites, also supposedly children of God having the same promises(Rom 9:4), are now accursed from Christ?"
How is this not pertaining to salvation?

Besides, Rom 9:14-15 is the response to the pre-empted implications of Rom 9:11-13. What implications could have arisen, for Paul to allude to God's sovereign mercy - given that Jacob was elected irrespective of what either of them were to do?

Hi ivDavid,

It's not about salvation in the sense that many try to apply it, that being that God is choosing some to be saved and not others. The choosing of Romans 9 is not a choosing to salvation versus not being saved. It is God choosing certain individuals through which He will fulfill the promises that He made to Abraham. In the overall argument the promises to Abraham do include salvation. But Paul is not arguing that God is choosing some to be saved and overlooking others.
 
Just to clarify, I am not trying to argue with you only understand. I know the love of God, I have felt it, at least as much of it as my body could take. It changed my life. I know how much he loves this world and wants to see people come to saving knowledge, but I have also felt His wrath. God is love, but He also has other emotions. Who is sovereign then God or man? In this explanation it looks like man is sovereign. Does man have the power to thwart God's plan? Man has a will, but it is rarely free. Look at all the influence that corporations have on us with advertising and our government with the news media. Our will is influenced. Are you saying that God loves us but he never influences our will? Just His love alone influences us. Did he love Pharaoh or Judas? It doesn't seem like He did. It says in Exodus 10:20 that the Lord hardened the heart of pharaoh. God choose Judas to be close to him to accomplish a plan and he choose Pharaoh to be Pharaoh at the time he needed to let the people go. My best explanation is God has a plan and He can use who He wants when He wants and however He wants to accomplish that plan. I also believe that sometimes people will not follow the plan that God has for their lives, but His overall plan will go forth. He is sovereign within His plan, but the players are changeable because He did give us a will. That's the beauty and strength of God, he can use fallible beings to carry out His plan, and even though they fail, the plan will go forth. I have seen this time and time again. God has a plan for something, someone fails, but then someone else steps in and it succeeds.

I agree with everything you have posted, well done. In defiance of God's plan, and man being aware of it, is Satan and a host of evil angels. They can and do influence the mind of man. So God's plan can be thwarted, but not stopped. Scripture does allude to God using men like Pharaoh & Judas for His purpose. Romans 11:22 says "Note the kindness and the severity of God. When I posted to you, I was speaking of the love of God for mankind to come to Salvation. Yep! there is the other side of God that you have so wonderfully noted.

I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving Sandy, may the Lord richly bless you with love, peace, and the joy of the Season.
 
I can't explain something I don't believe as true. As to what I actually believe, they're already expressed through the posts on this thread. As to how my beliefs have gotten associated with this above statement - I am willing to know about and clarify.
Help me out here. Answer this question for me: Do you believe that God has built into each person whether or not they will believe and have no choice in the matter?

This will help me understand your posts when I play catch-up later and pick our discussion up where we left off.

Truthfully, from my POV this thread has degraded into a confusing mess. Now it seems no one defends 'predetermined election', as in 'nobody has any choice whether they will be among the saved, or not'. I don't think we can have it both ways.

Either Ephesians 1, and Romans 9-11 are saying God pre-programs ahead of time who will be saved, and who will not, not by their own choice, but by his alone, or he doesn't do that. It's easy to see how Paul is NOT teaching pre-programmed belief in those passages, but it does mean laying aside the present indoctrination in the church about those passages and letting yourself see the opposing view, and how it gels with the whole counsel of scripture, not contradicts it as 'predetermined election' doctrine does.
 
I agree with everything you have posted, well done. In defiance of God's plan, and man being aware of it, is Satan and a host of evil angels. They can and do influence the mind of man. So God's plan can be thwarted, but not stopped. Scripture does allude to God using men like Pharaoh & Judas for His purpose. Romans 11:22 says "Note the kindness and the severity of God. When I posted to you, I was speaking of the love of God for mankind to come to Salvation. Yep! there is the other side of God that you have so wonderfully noted.

I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving Sandy, may the Lord richly bless you with love, peace, and the joy of the Season.
You have a great Thanksgiving also. I see we are in agreement, but just saying it differently.
 
Of course, I am of your same view. I simply wanted to establish the conclusion that at that point that I was referring to, there was absolutely no denying that man deserved to be condemned - though such a man might have been found guilty and been brought under such condemnation much earlier, when he had chosen to sin.


The context for Rom 9:14-15, begins before the 9th chapter itself - which is why I've summarized all the chapters leading to the 9th. The core doctrines(apart from many more important ones) handled in the first 8 chapters are - "justification apart from the Law" , "justification and life by grace, through faith in Christ Jesus" and "adoption as children and the consequent assured hope of final glorification".

Rom 1 - All those practicing ungodliness and unrighteousness openly even though they knew God, made evident within them, deserve God's wrath.
Rom 2 - All those who judge the above group but are themselves just the same in action, deserve God's wrath too - for it is not the expressed intent but the doers of the Law who are found Just. The gentiles have the law written in their hearts. The Jew is found a transgressor of the Law given to him.
Rom 3 - From the above, All the world is found guilty before God under the Law. Therefore, man is justified by faith, apart from the Law.
Rom 4 - Examples to support Rom 3 justification by faith, apart from the law.
Rom 5 - The Law was given to reveal sin - but grace abounds much more over sin. Therein, man is now no longer under the law(further supporting Rom 3 justification apart from the Law) - but under grace.
Rom 6 - Disproving anticipated erroneous implications raised against the above Rom 5.
Rom 7:1-6 - Final evidences and conclusion that man is now indeed justified apart from the Law.
Rom 7:7-25 - Disproving anticipated erroneous implications raised against the above. Man is now justified apart from the Law not because the law is sinful (the Law is of the Spirit and is holy) - but because man is sinful, in the flesh.
Rom 8:1-13 - Therefore, apart from the Law and sinful flesh - man(in the spirit) is justified(no longer condemned) and has life in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:14-17 - The Glorious result of the above - adoption as children, where man is an heir of God and a fellow heir with Christ - through suffering unto the final glorification.
Rom 8:18-39 - Manifold assurances of and reasons for - the definite realization of the above hope - as children of God, unto their final glorification .

If I have understood you correctly. I agree with your premise.

So, let us begin Rom 9 where we ended Rom 8 - with the manifold assurances of the final glorification, being the children of God. As is the pattern, this chapter deals with disproving anticipated erroneous implications against the preceding points made. What is the anticipated erroneous implication/objection?

If Paul's fellow Israelites received the above promises and adoption as children of God(Rom 9:4) - but are now accursed from Christ (Rom 9:3) - does it not nullify God's promised word and all the assurances of Rom 8:18-39?

Can you see the significance of this implication/objection? Paul painstakingly writes Rom 8:18-39 to assure his intended readers(most probably gentiles, given that they're Romans) of their hope of final glorification, as children of God - but these readers then could point to his fellow Israelites(also children of God) and their current state of being accursed from Christ inspite of the same promises and assurances to Israel - and applying that scenario to themselves, they could question the very validity of such assurances and promises from God in Rom 8:18-39.

So, Paul has to clarify what happened with respect to his fellow Israelites, upholding God's promised word and assurances - so that these readers can then apply the same scenario to themselves in confidence.

Agree

Here begins Paul's defense with a declaration refuting the above objection -
Rom 9:6a - Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect...

And the reason follows -
Rom 9:6b .....For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

So Paul's line of argument is that God's assurances and promised word to His children have Never failed. He simply clarifies that not all the people of Israelite origin are children of God, rather only a subset of all these people make up the actual "Israel" - which can lay claim to the promises and assurances, as the children of God.

That might have seemed quite convenient of Paul to sidestep an objection, by introducing seemingly new concepts - unless he is able to back this with Scriptural evidence that there indeed is a subset selected that the promises are made applicable to.

Paul presents Rom 9:7-9 - showing not all are children of God just because of fleshly descent - rather, only a subset who are covered by God's promises(example cited here is the Gen 21:12 promise) are children of God.

He further presents Rom 9:10-13 to bolster the same point, with the additional information that God's selection of these subsets is not based on anything done by the recipients, rather is in accordance to His own purposes in selecting such subsets.


I agree. There are 2 subsets, that are declared by God for His purposes, and defined by Him. I agree with @Synthesis, in an earlier post where he says that it is the path that one (maybe or both, have to ask him) of these subsets takes that has been determined (predestined) by God. Therefore, the ones who follow this path are considered the elect. I must stress that I may not have gotten Synthesis' idea completely correct by description, but the path is correctly from him. I agree.


Let's pause here and take stock of the argument so far - Paul's reader is talking about the Israelites being accursed from Christ(Rom 9:3) inspite of the same God's promised word to him - and applying that to himself, he wants to see if he can be assured against a similar fate. And Paul clarifies, paralleling Scriptural evidences in Isaac and Jacob, that God's Word has never failed with the 'real/actual' Israelites who are part of the selected subset to be covered by God's promises. This seems to have validated Rom 8:18-39 and the reader's confidence in what he hopes, as an heir/child of God.

But the reader then probably jumps the gun and starts applying Paul's paralleling Scriptural evidences to his own scenario of concerns over final glorification(salvation unto the end) - leading to the inference that the selection of the current subset of people(jew and gentile) too as children of God is not based on anything done by the recipients, rather is in accordance to His own purposes in selecting such subsets - and the reader understandably objects in Rom 9:14.

If this were not to be meant so, Paul could have easily disarmed the objection by stating - "Hey, that was only a paralleling illustration on the fact that God does select subsets according to His purposes - and it so happened that in Jacob's and Esau's case, God chose the subset before they were even born, independent of what they were to do - but that doesn't lend itself to application in our core argument - because here, though God does still select subsets, it's not completely independent of what we do" - and the argument ends there. Simple, right?

That is the problem as I see it. The argument and conclusion is not simple. And yes if it is left there the picture is not complete.

But what does Paul do - he defends the argument by talking about mercy! Where is the need to talk about mercy if it were meant to be applied only to Jacob and Esau - and Jacob's selection into the subset independent of what either of them were to do? Paul has done the improbable - he actually has pre-empted the Rom 9:14 objection arising out of a parallel application of Rom 9:11 to the reader's own selection and salvation - and he responds to that in his defense of Rom 9:15.

And this is why I presented these 2 verses, Rom 9:14,15 to contextually answer your queries on this. As it is, this post is quite verbose, so I'll stop here - please share what you find to be illogical or inconsistent in this so far.

You say, that "Jacob's selection into the subset independent of what either of them were to do?" Making it to include future acts on their part. But what I see Rom 9:11 say, is that they were still in the womb and as yet, they had done nothing. At this point, I see Esau being a representative of one subset and Jacob the other subset. And the two paths of those subsets. As the picture becomes more complete we see that they each, did do something and again showing the predetermined paths. Paths of "works" and "grace and faith".
I want you to know that I am not the smartest cookie on this block, so you really need to keep it as simple as you are able.
The first time I read this post, I had to walk away and try to put on a different thinking cap that has been in the closet for a very long time and never fit very well to begin with. Two simple programming classes many years ago, that I barely knew what I was doing (thank goodness they were both simple pass/fail classes or my GPA would have been trashed) and anything beyond Aleg.II and Geom. is like a very dense cloud that I wouldn't even dare to enter.
 
Just to clarify, I am not trying to argue with you only understand. I know the love of God, I have felt it, at least as much of it as my body could take. It changed my life. I know how much he loves this world and wants to see people come to saving knowledge, but I have also felt His wrath. God is love, but He also has other emotions. Who is sovereign then God or man? In this explanation it looks like man is sovereign. Does man have the power to thwart God's plan? Man has a will, but it is rarely free. Look at all the influence that corporations have on us with advertising and our government with the news media. Our will is influenced. Are you saying that God loves us but he never influences our will? Just His love alone influences us. Did he love Pharaoh or Judas? It doesn't seem like He did. It says in Exodus 10:20 that the Lord hardened the heart of pharaoh. God choose Judas to be close to him to accomplish a plan and he choose Pharaoh to be Pharaoh at the time he needed to let the people go.

What you have written below is how I see it, as well. If one person refuses or fails, God will raise up another. His plan will succeed. In this we can be confident.
My best explanation is God has a plan and He can use who He wants when He wants and however He wants to accomplish that plan. I also believe that sometimes people will not follow the plan that God has for their lives, but His overall plan will go forth. He is sovereign within His plan, but the players are changeable because He did give us a will. That's the beauty and strength of God, he can use fallible beings to carry out His plan, and even though they fail, the plan will go forth. I have seen this time and time again. God has a plan for something, someone fails, but then someone else steps in and it succeeds.
 
Back
Top