What is Election?

[mondar]

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.

You keep mentioning that Paul was addressing, so let me make sure of your assertions. Paul was writing to the "Romans" and there were no gentiles in that Church so he was addressing Jews only? And what is your evidence? Concerning Romans 9, can you demonstrate the context and show how each and every part of the context relates to issues concerning Abraham? I would like to see this. Please do not skip even one verse.

I am hoping to see every verse, but I will especially pay attention to what you say about the vessels fitted to destruction. If they are not unbelievers, they are whom? If the vessels fitted to glory are not believers, they are whom? When Paul says "3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake," he is not speaking of salvation issues with the Jews? In verse 6, how does the word of God "come to nought."

Please demonstrate your points in the text, please do not merely make assertions.

 

[ivdavid]

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?

No - I do not believe that. We did have discussions over the bullets analogy earlier - and if you'd recollect or recheck, I was of the firm view that concerning morality/judgement/salvation, God creates each and every man exactly the same. Why would I then believe that God 'pre-programs' something in one and not in another, ahead of time? As to the aspect of "choice" in the matter of believing, clarify the use of language for me - would you phrase it as, "fallen man in the flesh has No choice in the matter of sinning" - or would you say, "fallen man in the flesh inevitably Chooses to sin"? I would convey my beliefs in the latter form - as similarly with the matter of believing?

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.

Though I don't equate the reformed view of 'election' with just this above implication - I shall address it here given this is your chief reservation. Everybody has a choice always - and everybody keeps choosing - either to sin, in the flesh - or to obey Righteousness, in the spirit. Concerning salvation, every single man is offered the choice of redemption through faith in Christ and are commanded to choose it - but all those in the flesh Choose to reject this, thereby bringing upon Just condemnation on themselves. Now, as a condemned man, he is no longer entitled to life and hence no longer has any 'choice' in the matter of salvation - he shall live or die based upon the sovereign mercy of the King.

 

[ivdavid]

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".

They were in the womb, and they hadn't done any good or evil - Facts. But why is Paul stating these facts in the same breath of God's election of these 'subsets' - and moreover why is Paul also sequencing this election to come before any good or evil acts committed by either of them? Is it not to conclude that God's election of subsets is not dependent on man's acts?

Having concluded so, we could then see them as representative of two paths, where the elder shall serve the younger. As to these paths being reflective of works vs grace - is it absolutely necessary to read that in here, when we've got Gal 4:22-31? Besides, true as they could be, what relevance does any of this have to do with the core contextual verse of Rom 9:6 ?

you really need to keep it as simple as you are able.

The word 'elect' was being thrown around to mean different things - that's why I arrived at 'selection of subsets' for an alternative. Feel free to suggest phrases/terms and I'll adopt them in our discussions.

 

[Deborah13]

No - I do not believe that. We did have discussions over the bullets analogy earlier - and if you'd recollect or recheck, I was of the firm view that concerning morality/judgement/salvation, God creates each and every man exactly the same. Why would I then believe that God 'pre-programs' something in one and not in another, ahead of time? As to the aspect of "choice" in the matter of believing, clarify the use of language for me - would you phrase it as, "fallen man in the flesh has No choice in the matter of sinning" - or would you say, "fallen man in the flesh inevitably Chooses to sin"? I would convey my beliefs in the latter form - as similarly with the matter of believing?


Though I don't equate the reformed view of 'election' with just this above implication - I shall address it here given this is your chief reservation. Everybody has a choice always - and everybody keeps choosing - either to sin, in the flesh - or to obey Righteousness, in the spirit.

****

Concerning salvation, every single man is offered the choice of redemption through faith in Christ and are commanded to choose it - but all those in the flesh Choose to reject this, thereby bringing upon Just condemnation on themselves. Now, as a condemned man, he is no longer entitled to life and hence no longer has any 'choice' in the matter of salvation - he shall live or die based upon the sovereign mercy of the King.

And this is called the "general call" that goes out to all those that have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So they are still in the flesh and they cannot believe. This call is, ineffectual/resistable.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[ivdavid]

And this is called the "general call" that goes out to all those that have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So they are still in the flesh and they cannot believe. This call is, ineffectual/resistable.

Is this what you are saying?

I would say that this is the "same Gospel call" that goes out - period. Is there a different Gospel preached to those regenerated by the Holy Spirit? But yes, those in the flesh continue to choose to not believe and disobey the Gospel (2Cor 4:3-4).

 

[jasoncran]

deb I will pm you on the vey in the YHWH, its a view similar to Calvinism.

 

[Butch5]

You keep mentioning that Paul was addressing, so let me make sure of your assertions. Paul was writing to the "Romans" and there were no gentiles in that Church so he was addressing Jews only? And what is your evidence? Concerning Romans 9, can you demonstrate the context and show how each and every part of the context relates to issues concerning Abraham? I would like to see this. Please do not skip even one verse.


I am hoping to see every verse, but I will especially pay attention to what you say about the vessels fitted to destruction. If they are not unbelievers, they are whom? If the vessels fitted to glory are not believers, they are whom? When Paul says "3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake," he is not speaking of salvation issues with the Jews? In verse 6, how does the word of God "come to nought."


Please demonstrate your points in the text, please do not merely make assertions.

Mondar,


I've made these points in our previous discussion on this subject. The Letter was written to the church at Rome, however, in the letter Paul addresses the Jewish believers at one point and the Gentile believers at another. Paul turns his attention to the Jewish believers at Romans 2:17. He continues this discourse through 11:13 where he turns his attention to the Gentiles.


What is the subject of Romans 9? Is it not, "My kinsmen according to the flesh"?


3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who 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; (Rom 9:3-4 KJV)

Who do the promises belong to?

4 Who 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;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.(Rom 9:4-5 KJV)


Paul said the promises belong to the fathers, that's Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He also said it was concerning the fathers that Christ came. What are the promises that belong to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

God made a four fold promse to Abraham. He promised He would,

1. Make him the father of a great nation.
2. Make him the father of many nations.
3. Give him and his seed the land "forever".
4. That all nations would be blessed through him.

God later gave the promise to Isaac.

And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.(Gen 26:1-5 KJV)

He made the same promise to Jacob.

9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him.
10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land. (Gen 35:9-12 KJV)

These are the only three men that God made that promise to. That is what Paul says the promises belong to the fathers. He also says that is concerning the that Christ came, more on that shortly. What's key is that God swore this oath to Abraham.

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And 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:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:15-18 KJV)

These are the promises that Paul is talking about in Romans 9. God told each of these men that He was going to give them and their seed the land as a permanent possession. These men never received the land, Stephen points out that Abraham never got the land.

 

[Butch5]

KJV Acts 7:1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (Act 7:1-5 KJV)


As Stephen points out Abraham never received the land, yet God had promised it to him and his seed. This why Paul says it’s not a though the word of God is of none effect. From a human standpoint it would appear that the promise to Abraham was not fulfilled. Abraham was promised the land and never received it. How will God’s promise to Abraham be fulfilled if Abraham is dead? The promise was also made to Isaac and Jacob who also never received it. The word “seed” is singular and can be understood as a single seed or collectively as many seeds. The Jews understood it collectively, that as the physical seed of Abraham they were entitled to the promises made to Abraham and “thy seed.” The problem is that they were wrong. Paul argues in Galatians 3 that when God made the promise to Abraham and his seed, He meant “Seed” in the singular. That is He meant “One” seed and that “Seed” is Christ.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ
17 And this I say, that, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal 3:16-18 KJV)


Here Paul argues that the promises were made to the “Seed” who is Christ and not the physical offspring of Abraham. Thus his statement in Romans ,’ they are not all Israel that are of Israel.’ Consider Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, ‘You must be born again.’ Nicodemus was a Jew and understood that as a Jew he was entitled by birth to the promises made to Abraham. Jesus is telling that his birth from Abraham will not gain him access into the kingdom of God but that he must be born again.


Paul argues that the inheritance, (which is the Land) is received through the promise and not the Law. Isaac said to Jacob,


And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.

2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.
3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;
4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.(Gen 28:1-4 KJV)

Isaac said to Jacob, God bless thee and give thee “the blessing of Abraham” that thou mayest inherit the land. The blessing of Abraham is the inheritance of the land. This phrase “the blessing of Abraham” only appears twice in Scripture. Once in Gen 28 and the other time is in Galatians 3 where Paul applies it to the Gentiles.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.(Gal 3:9-14 KJV)



Paul is making the argument that the “blessing of Abraham” comes through faith in Christ not through being a physical seed of Abraham. The land was promised to Abraham and his Seed, Isaac and his Seed, and Jacob and his Seed, and that Seed, according to Paul is Christ. We can also see that David prophesied this very thing.



6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Psa 2:6-12 KJV)



It’s literally, the uttermost parts of the land. The land is the Son’s inheritances



It is these promises that Paul is addressing in Romans 9. He explains how God went about fulfilling these promises. First God called Abraham, then from Abraham, chose Isaac over Ishmael, and from Isaac, chose Jacob over Esau. Paul makes the point that God chose who would be in the lineage of Christ and no one else. Man had nothing to do with God bringing these promises to fruition. Paul also addresses the question of God’s righteousness in regard to the choosing. The Jews understood themselves to be the heirs of the promises, yet Paul argues that they are not. The natural question would be if God made the promises to Abraham and his seed and we are the seed how is God righteous if we do not receive the promises? The question comes from their misunderstanding of the passages in Genesis and who the Seed was. Paul’s argument is basically God will use whoever He chooses to use.



He brings up the analogy of the potter and the clay where God makes two different types of vessels from the same lump of clay. The lump is Israel, from which God created two different types of vessels, Isaac and Jacob were one type of vessel and Ishmael and Esau were the other. It doesn’t mean Ishmael and Esau couldn’t have been saved, it just means that they were not chosen to be those though whom God would fulfill the promises.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No - I do not believe that. We did have discussions over the bullets analogy earlier - and if you'd recollect or recheck, I was of the firm view that concerning morality/judgement/salvation, God creates each and every man exactly the same. Why would I then believe that God 'pre-programs' something in one and not in another, ahead of time?

Because the erroneous version of 'election' popular in the church today says Ephesians 1:4, and Romans 9:11-12 means God predetermines ahead of time who will believe and who will not.

"4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." (Ephesians 1:4 NIV)

"11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”" (Romans 9:11-12 NIV)

If you disagree with that meaning in your version of election, that God predetermines who the elect are ahead of time, please explain what these verses mean in your doctrine about election.

As to the aspect of "choice" in the matter of believing, clarify the use of language for me - would you phrase it as, "fallen man in the flesh has No choice in the matter of sinning" - or would you say, "fallen man in the flesh inevitably Chooses to sin"? I would convey my beliefs in the latter form - as similarly with the matter of believing?

The second part is obviously true--fallen man without the aid of the Spirit by default chooses to live in unrighteousness. But before any fallen person puts their trust in the blood of Christ for a declaration of righteousness, the voice of the Holy Spirit shows the fallen person the truth about their guilt, God's righteousness, and the Judgment to come.

That's obviously an activity of the Spirit in a person's heart, but simply being shown the truth of the gospel hardly constitutes being born again (James teaches us how that faith can't save anybody). But the church seems to not be able to understand the activity of the Spirit working on a person concerning faith and knowing the gospel is true without also being born again as a prerequisite for having that knowledge.

James talks about the demons, and those like them, who know Jesus is the Christ (they know it better than you or I), but that their 'faith', their surety of knowing can not, and will not, save anybody. Only the faith that leads to 'believing' saves. Simply knowing the gospel is true, by revelation of the Spirit speaking the truth to a person's heart, does not save. Putting your trust in what God shows you--that is, retaining that Word of faith--that is what saves.

You don't have to be born again to simply be shown by God the gospel is true. It's an enablement of faith that God gives so the sinner can get saved. You get born again by placing your trust in the gospel message after you've been shown it. That's the difference between 'faith', and 'believing'.

Though I don't equate the reformed view of 'election' with just this above implication - I shall address it here given this is your chief reservation. Everybody has a choice always - and everybody keeps choosing - either to sin, in the flesh - or to obey Righteousness, in the spirit.

In regard to the fallen person choosing to trust in Christ, through the gift of faith (the voice of the Holy Spirit), perhaps the right phrase to use is 'BY the Spirit'.

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

I've made these points in our previous discussion on this subject. The Letter was written to the church at Rome, however, in the letter Paul addresses the Jewish believers at one point and the Gentile believers at another. Paul turns his attention to the Jewish believers at Romans 2:17. He continues this discourse through 11:13 where he turns his attention to the Gentiles.

Butch, I do not know how to say this without being blunt, but Paul is not addressing Jewish believers only from Chapter 2 to Chapter 11 because of one reference in 2:17. That is simply not exegesis, or contextual. When I asked you to do this.... "Concerning Romans 9, can you demonstrate the context and show how each and every part of the context relates to issues concerning Abraham?" That does not mean I am asking you to just pick one verse and then suggest "thats what its all about." I must admit you picked a few more verses to include, but I asked you to include every verse and show the flow of Paul's logic and the continuity between each and every part of the text. You end any discussion of the text at verse 5. That

What is the subject of Romans 9? Is it not, "My kinsmen according to the flesh"?

Was Pharaoh his kinsman according to the flesh? Were the Gentiles mentioned in verse 24 Paul's kinsman according to the flesh. Again, you pick one thing somewhere in the text and then make that the context without demonstrating it in all the parts of the context?

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who 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; (Rom 9:3-4 KJV)

Who do the promises belong to?

Butch, I am sure your a brother in the Lord, and I do not want to show disrespect, but when I asked you to do this.... "Concerning Romans 9, can you demonstrate the context and show how each and every part of the context relates to issues concerning Abraham? I would like to see this. Please do not skip even one verse." You did not even begin to do what I asked. Maybe you did not understand the request? You merely mentioned verses 3-5 and then make this giantic leap that the whole context is about Jewish promises. Then you leave Romans 9:5 and jump from verse to verse elsewhere in the scriptures talking about the Abrahamic promises. Yeah, its all nice, I am very aware of the promises given to Abraham, and many more promises, but it has next to nothing to do with establishing the topic of Romans 9. To do that, you should be doing what I said in my question, going through each and every part of the chapter and relating each and every part to what your saying the topic is. You have not even come close to working with the context at all. Was Pharaoh Jewish? How does verse 24 relate to this theme?

Your also making a huge leap of logic about the covenants that they are not soteriological. That is simply not even close to understanding the covenants. Especially the Abrahamic Covenant is about salvation and the Gospel. One reference in the scripture eminently shows that to be true.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.
In this reference the Abrahamic phrase from Genesis 12 "In thee shall all the nations be blessed is called the "gospel." It is the gospel of justification by faith alone in Galatians. Even in Romans, 4 and Galatians 3, Genesis 15 is used as a defense of justification by faith alone. Yet you make this huge assumption that the Abrahamic Covenant is not soteriological, and your assumption is without evidence.

Butch, even in one of the verses you quoted, Romans 9:3 salvation is sticking out like a sore thumb. When Paul says "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ" he is referring to the salvific promises to his brethren.

Now had you said that that Romans 9 is about the salvation and election of Jewish individuals in the first part of the chapter, I would not have questioned that statement. Of course verse 24 takes the first part of the chapter and says that the whole thing applies to Gentiles.
Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
The effectual calling of Gentiles on the basis of their election is the same as the Jews. Right in the text, it says so.

Butch, to go through the context, you should demonstrate any breaks or shifts in the context and how the slight shifts or breaks relate to each other. There are obvious breaks in the context when Paul presents two rhetorical questions from hypothetical opponents.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
These rhetorical markers are found in other contexts in Romans to mark shifts. Just take a small look at some of the other rhetorical markers in other contexts within Romans.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 7:1 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth?
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
Are you even familiar with Romans enough to be aware of Pauls stylistic feature of using rhetorical questions to present his contexts? You should have been explaining the rhetorical questions in 9:14 and 9:19 and how they fit your proposed theme. Yet when attempting to discuss the context you completely missed the most important aspects of the context. What you did, merely demonstrated to me that you do not have the foggiest idea what Romans 9 is about, or even any part of Romans for that matter. Even had you continued, and then related the illustrations in Romans 9:7-13 to the statement in 9:6 that would have been something. Did you do any of that? No, you just quote verses 3-5 and go on a tour of a few other Abrahamic passages not in Romans 9, or even in Romans, and then you ignore huge issues concerning the soteriological aspects of the covenants themselves.

Butch, I am guessing your my brother in the Lord, and maybe I have gone to far here, I dont know. I do wish to have a deeper conversation about Romans 9 and the context. The text is what it is all about. It is Gods word. I am sure we both agree on that. Well, I am off for tonight.

 

[ivdavid]

If you disagree with that meaning in your version of election, that God predetermines who the elect are ahead of time, please explain what these verses mean in your doctrine about election.

You're now shifting the goalpost. Earlier you asked me if I believed that God pre-programs men differently in creating them - I said No. Now you're asking me if I believe that God predetermines who will end up believing - I'd say Yes. The two are very different - the former scenario is a result of God creating men differently while the latter scenario is a result of God willing to show mercy.

God creates all men exactly the same concerning morality/salvation - gives all men exactly the same law to justify themselves - offers all men the same Gospel of salvation and commands them to believe - and all men choose to disobey the Gospel. At this point, God is justified if He were to condemn all men - and as Sovereign King, He is entitled to show mercy upon whom He wills too. The subset of all these condemned, that God now wills to have mercy upon - are the 'elect'. And given God's operation out of time(though in sequence) - He purposed this 'election' before the foundation of the world. Again, in sequence, having shown mercy, God regenerates the object of mercy - who then inevitably Chooses to repent and believe in Christ.

You don't have to be born again to simply be shown by God the gospel is true. It's an enablement of faith that God gives so the sinner can get saved. You get born again by placing your trust in the gospel message after you've been shown it.

Your worldview and theology leads you to your above conclusions, as do mine to my conclusions - but how are you establishing Biblical evidence to support only this? I too hold that man needs to be enabled against sin to believe - and that's what I hold happens in regeneration - but you hold them separate. So where are you seeing this "enablement of faith, apart from regeneration" being described in the Bible - or even implied in the Bible, to support only your view?

James talks about the demons, and those like them, who know Jesus is the Christ (they know it better than you or I), but that their 'faith', their surety of knowing can not, and will not, save anybody. Only the faith that leads to 'believing' saves.

You did the same with 1John - why are you refuting your own position with these passages? James is referring to the demons' "believing" and not "faith" - I hope you're using a literal translation.

In regard to the fallen person choosing to trust in Christ, through the gift of faith (the voice of the Holy Spirit), perhaps the right phrase to use is 'BY the Spirit'.

That's a given. But since neither of us are in disagreement over that, we move to the specific point over which we might find ourselves in disagreement - is man 'in the flesh(self-nature)' or is he 'in the spirit(God-nature)' while choosing to believe - where the 'spirit' here does not refer to the Holy Spirit but to the new nature in the 'inner man' (distinction seen in Rom 8:16). Hence, my question still holds.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, I do not know how to say this without being blunt, but Paul is not addressing Jewish believers only from Chapter 2 to Chapter 11 because of one reference in 2:17. That is simply not exegesis, or contextual. When I asked you to do this.... "Concerning Romans 9, can you demonstrate the context and show how each and every part of the context relates to issues concerning Abraham?" That does not mean I am asking you to just pick one verse and then suggest "thats what its all about." I must admit you picked a few more verses to include, but I asked you to include every verse and show the flow of Paul's logic and the continuity between each and every part of the text. You end any discussion of the text at verse 5. That

Hi Mondar


I didn't figure I'd need to right a verse by verse commentary to make the point. I figured once I established what the promises were Paul's argument could be easily seen. Regarding Paul's addressing the Jews.


17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, (Rom 2:17 KJV)


He turns his attention to the Jews here.


24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. (Rom 2:24 KJV).


The "you" is the Jews.


KJV Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? (Rom 3:1-6 KJV)


9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (Rom 3:9 KJV)


19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom 3:19 KJV)


KJV Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (Rom 4:1 KJV)


KJV Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? (Rom 7:1 KJV)


4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (Rom 7:4 KJV)

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Rom 7:6 KJV)

The Gentiles were not under the Law.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who 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;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:3-5 KJV)
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Rom 9:6-7 KJV)


25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (Rom 9:25-26 KJV)


Here is the passage that Paul is quoting.


6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.(Hos 1:6-10 KJV)


Here we see the references to God having mercy on who He wills. We also the that Paul is speaking of Jews when he quotes this passage.



KJV Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. (Rom 10:1 KJV)


16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Rom 10:16 KJV)


KJV Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, (Rom 11:1-2 KJV)


13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (Rom 11:13 KJV)


I think it’s clear that Paul is addressing the Jewish believers from 217-11;13. There are multiple references who he is addressing in these passages. He clearly turns his attention to the Gentiles in 11:13.

Was Pharaoh his kinsman according to the flesh?

No, I’m not sure what that has to do with it.

Were the Gentiles mentioned in verse 24 Paul's kinsman according to the flesh. Again, you pick one thing somewhere in the text and then make that the context without demonstrating it in all the parts of the context?

Yes, there were Gentiles who were Paul’s kinsmen. Abraham was a Gentile who was called. Isaac was a Gentile who was called.

I suspect that you are understanding the word “called” to be referring to salvation. Do you understand it the way reformed theology understands it? If so, I would suggest that that is not what Paul has in mind.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, I am sure your a brother in the Lord, and I do not want to show disrespect, but when I asked you to do this.... "Concerning Romans 9, can you demonstrate the context and show how each and every part of the context relates to issues concerning Abraham? I would like to see this. Please do not skip even one verse." You did not even begin to do what I asked. Maybe you did not understand the request? You merely mentioned verses 3-5 and then make this giantic leap that the whole context is about Jewish promises. Then you leave Romans 9:5 and jump from verse to verse elsewhere in the scriptures talking about the Abrahamic promises. Yeah, its all nice, I am very aware of the promises given to Abraham, and many more promises, but it has next to nothing to do with establishing the topic of Romans 9. To do that, you should be doing what I said in my question, going through each and every part of the chapter and relating each and every part to what your saying the topic is. You have not even come close to working with the context at all. Was Pharaoh Jewish? How does verse 24 relate to this theme?

Quite frankly to write a verse by verse commentary would take quite a bit of time. Secondly, it's been my experience that many simply reject what they disagree with whether is can be shown or not. I've spent hours writing a single post only to get replies such as, you're wrong. That's hardly discussion. You're statement, "Please do not skip even one verse" was a red flag to me that I might receive such a response. I thought by establishing the promises one would easily be able to follow Paul's argument. I did make points where I thought there may be some question or confusion. I guess my assumption was wrong.

 

[Butch5]

Your also making a huge leap of logic about the covenants that they are not soteriological. That is simply not even close to understanding the covenants. Especially the Abrahamic Covenant is about salvation and the Gospel. One reference in the scripture eminently shows that to be true.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.

In this reference the Abrahamic phrase from Genesis 12 "In thee shall all the nations be blessed is called the "gospel." It is the gospel of justification by faith alone in Galatians. Even in Romans, 4 and Galatians 3, Genesis 15 is used as a defense of justification by faith alone. Yet you make this huge assumption that the Abrahamic Covenant is not soteriological, and your assumption is without evidence.


Butch, even in one of the verses you quoted, Romans 9:3 salvation is sticking out like a sore thumb. When Paul says "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ" he is referring to the salvific promises to his brethren.

You said, "Your also making a huge leap of logic about the covenants that they are not soteriological." I don't know how you came to that conclusion. When I said that Romans 9 is not talking about salvation, I pointed out that I was talking about it in the sense that it is commonly used in Romans, that being that God is choosing who will be saved. Nowhere did I indicate that the Abrahamic covenant was not soteriological.


From reading what you wrote here I understand why you don't see the point I'm making. What I've said will not fit into your theology. It seems you're trying to fit what I am saying into your understanding of the text rather than looking at the text from my perspective. I've you look at the text from the perspective of God fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant you won't have the issue that are arising. In Galatians Paul does make the argument for justification by faith, however, he does not argue faith alone. Secondly the gospel (good news) that was preached to Abraham was that all nations would be blessed through him.

 

[Butch5]

Now had you said that that Romans 9 is about the salvation and election of Jewish individuals in the first part of the chapter, I would not have questioned that statement. Of course verse 24 takes the first part of the chapter and says that the whole thing applies to Gentiles.


Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?


The effectual calling of Gentiles on the basis of their election is the same as the Jews. Right in the text, it says so.



Butch, to go through the context, you should demonstrate any breaks or shifts in the context and how the slight shifts or breaks relate to each other. There are obvious breaks in the context when Paul presents two rhetorical questions from hypothetical opponents.


Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?


These rhetorical markers are found in other contexts in Romans to mark shifts. Just take a small look at some of the other rhetorical markers in other contexts within Romans.


Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?


Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.


Rom 7:1 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth?


Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:


Are you even familiar with Romans enough to be aware of Pauls stylistic feature of using rhetorical questions to present his contexts? You should have been explaining the rhetorical questions in 9:14 and 9:19 and how they fit your proposed theme. Yet when attempting to discuss the context you completely missed the most important aspects of the context. What you did, merely demonstrated to me that you do not have the foggiest idea what Romans 9 is about, or even any part of Romans for that matter. Even had you continued, and then related the illustrations in Romans 9:7-13 to the statement in 9:6 that would have been something. Did you do any of that? No, you just quote verses 3-5 and go on a tour of a few other Abrahamic passages not in Romans 9, or even in Romans, and then you ignore huge issues concerning the soteriological aspects of the covenants themselves.



Butch, I am guessing your my brother in the Lord, and maybe I have gone to far here, I dont know. I do wish to have a deeper conversation about Romans 9 and the context. The text is what it is all about. It is Gods word. I am sure we both agree on that. Well, I am off for tonight.

Mondar,

You questioned my understanding of Romans 9. As I said, I believe you're trying to understand what I'm saying within the framework of your theology and that simply won't work. You're usage of the tern "effectual call" tells me that you're looking at text from a reformed perspective, I'm not. I said in a earlier post to ivDavid, that yes, salvation is in Paul's overall argument, however, he is not arguing in Romans 9 that God chooses some to be saved and not others. That idea is simply being imposed on the text. Paul said that Jacob was chosen over Esau, that the elder shall serve the younger. He didn't say anything about Jacob being saved and Esau not being saved.

Paul opens Romans 9 with a description of the promises that were given to the Jews. He then says that it's not a though the promise of God is of none effect. He then begins to explain how God has undertaken to fulfill those promises. There the child of promise, Isaac, then the choosing of Jacob over Esau. Then Paul quotes Malachi when he says, "Jacob have I loved, bur Esau have I hated." If you go back and look at Malachi it becomes apparent what Paul is saying. It has nothing to do wsith Jacob being saved and Esau being overlooked.

KJV Malachi 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. (Mal 1:1-4 KJV)

This is why Paul says,

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.(Rom 9:14-15 KJV)

Paul raises the question is God unrighteous for choosing Jacob over Esau when neither had done good nor evil. God had mercy on Jacob and not on Esau. God chose Jacob and not Esau, but it doesn't saying anything about either being chosen to be saved. So the question of God's righteousness is raised in regard to His hating Israel. Look at what Paul quotes.

3 "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

Why did God do this? It's explained in Obadiah.

KJV Obadiah 1:1 The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.
2 Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.
3 The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?
4 Though thou exalt thyselfas the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.
5 If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, (how art thou cut off!) would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes?
6 How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up!
7 All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him.
8 Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.
10For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
11 In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.
12 But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
13 Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
14 Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.
17 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.
18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall ktindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.
19 And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead.
20 And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south.
21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.(Oba 1:1-21 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

It should be clear from this passage in Obadiah that God hater Esau (Edom) because of the pride. That Paul has Edom in mind in Romans 9 and not simply the man Esau can be seen in his quote about Rebecca.

21 And Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD answered him and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If it is so, why then am I this way?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger." (Gen 25:21-23 NAS)

Paul quotes “the older shall serve the younger” from Gen 25. I think it’s pretty clear that God is choosing who it is that He will use to serve His purpose, which in this case is fulfilling His promises to Abraham.

Paul brings Pharaoh into the equation to show that God not only used the Jews but also Gentiles to serve His purposes. He used Pharaoh to make His power known to the Israelites. When Pharaoh may have let them go God hardened his heart to further demonstrate His power. However, the Scriptures tell us that Pharaoh also hardened his own heart. There’s nothing here that says Pharaoh was hardened so that he couldn’t be saved.

So, if God has mercy on who He will’s and hardens some why does He find fault? A logical question but Paul doesn’t answer it. Instead he challenges the questioners authority to question God.

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Rom 9:20-21 KJV)


Paul makes the argument that it is the potters prerogative to do as he pleases. We can see from the passage that both vessels come from the same lump. Both Jacob and Esau came from the same lump Isaac, yet one was a vessel of honor and the other was not. One was fitted for glory and honor the other was fitted for destruction. Not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles. Abraham and Isaac were vessels of honor, Esau and Pharaoh were not.

Then Paul quotes Hosea.

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (Rom 9:25-26 KJV)

Here Paul quotes a passage showing that Israel will be rejected for a time, yet will later be accepted again.

18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;
22 And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel.
23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. (Hos 2:18-23 KJV)

KJV Hosea 3:1 Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.
2 So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley:
3 And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee.
4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days. (Hos 3:1-5 KJV)

Hosea prophesies of Israels rejection and ultimate reconciliation with the Lord in the latter days. This can be seen more clearly by reading the book of Hosea, however, it is too large to post the entire book.

Paul then quotes Isaiah showing that a remnant of Israel shall be saved.

Paul draws from this that the Gentiles who sought righteousness by faith did attain it, whereas the Jews who sought it by the works of the Law did not, they stumbled at the stumbling stone. Paul concludes that the Jews didn’t attain to righteousness due to a lack of knowlegde


KJV Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:1-4 KJV)



Paul’s quoting of several OT passages here is in Romans 9 should make it clear that he is describing historic events in Israel’s history to show how God has used the Jews and is using the Jews to fulfill His promises to Abraham.

 

[Butch5]

Hi Mondar,

You seemed to protest my going to Galatians and Genesis to make my point about the Abrahamic covenant. I did so because Galatians give a fuller explanation of the covenant. However, it is in the context of Romans Paul had touched on it previously.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. (Rom 4:6-18 KJV)

 

[mondar]

Butch, it is painfully obvious that many parts of the scriptures relate to the Jewish people. There are even aspects of Romans 9 related to the Jew. I have never said otherwise. So in going all over the Bible (and oddly enough avoiding a verse by verse exegesis of Romans 9) you still have not even begun to relate all the parts of Romans 9 to a common theme. I mentioned some of the obvious contextual dividers. Did you take that and run with it and show how those dividers relate to your common theme? No. You ignored anything said about the internal workings of Romans 9 and just jump all over the bible from different passage to different passage. Why? So far, you seem willing to go to 40 or 50 verses outside Romans 9 and will mention only a few verses in the context of Romans 9. Why? Why don't you simply go verse by verse and show how each part of Romans 9 relates to your theme. You complain that to go verse by vese in Romans 9 would take to much work, but you have spent far more time in all these other verses that are not in Romans 9. Why? Would it not be a lot less work for you to actually go through Romans 9 and do as I ask? It is also becoming painfully obvious that you will not do as I asked because you cannot do as I asked. Butch, what your doing is not exegesis. You are not going through the text and demonstrating the context at all. All you are doing is showing that there are Jewish aspects in the passage that are related to other contexts. So when I ask about the context, your giving non-sequitur answers. Your not answering the question. Butch, answer the question by a verse by verse demonstration of how verses 1-24 relate to your common theme in the passage. Demonstrate that the passage is not about salvation in any way. So far, the only verses you mentioned in the text are verses 3-5. I will happily grant you that verses 3-5 have a Jewish theme in them, but when I raise issues that the Jewish covenants (and promises) relate to salvation, even in verses 3-5, you do not give a coherent answer even about those verses. I pointed out that Pauls statement in verse 3 has soteriological aspects in it when he says he would become anathema "from Christ" for the sake of his Jewish brethren, and did you even recognize those soteriological aspects? Butch, I will tell you what we can do. If you can be honest enough to admit you cannot go through the context and establish a theme by relating all parts to a common theme in a verse by verse way. If your willing to honestly admit that, then I will go through the context and do for you that exact thing I requested. I will even tell you the theme in advance. It is the "salvation and election of the Jewish remnant (1-23) and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the same salvation and election (24)." There it is Butch. Just a simple honest recognition on your part that you cannot relate Romans 9:1-24 together into a common theme and I will do it for you. I will not go all over the bible, I will stay right in the Chapter. I will do the work that you say is too much. Just be honest enough to tell me you do not know how to do that.

Also, your denial of justification by faith alone in Galatians is rather huge. Maybe it is something I should not respond to in this thread, but you mentioned it and now I must respond because your view is a denial of the gospel. Galatians uses the term "justify" 6 times and in not one of those times does it speak of any other requirement other then faith. The old failed argument that requires the bible to say certain words "faith alone" is just not worth much. If I have a barrel of 100 apples, and each and every one of them is red, and there is a sign on the side of the barrel "red apples" you cannot say that there are yellow apples in it because the words "red alone" do not appear. The same with the concept of justification by faith alone. Those very word might not occur with regard to the doctrine of justification, but when every passage that mentions the doctrine of justification requires only faith, then faith is the only requirement. Now I am guessing you will go to one of two passages, either Romans 2 or James 2. Either passage would be in error. James 2 is the most common, but James 2:24 is not using the term "justified" to speak of the doctrine of justification, but rather goes back to verse 18 where the issue is faith. The question in verse 18 is this. Is the person without works justified in saying "I have faith." James answer is that he is not justified in the statement "I have faith." So then, the term justified in verse 24 is not speaking of justification by faith, but it is speaking of the justification of the claim of a man "I have faith." The man with works is justified in saying "I have faith." We could have another big debate on the doctrine of Justification by faith alone in James 2, but that should be a different thread.

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar,

You seemed to protest my going to Galatians and Genesis to make my point about the Abrahamic covenant. I did so because Galatians give a fuller explanation of the covenant. However, it is in the context of Romans Paul had touched on it previously.

If you trying to prove that the context of Romans 9 is not about salvation do you realize you might have to deal with the context of Romans 9. Is it a difficult concept that Romans 9 is about the context of Romans 9? I am not protesting you going to other contexts, but do you understand the process of exegesis? Do you realize that to demonstrate what the context is in Romans 9 that you will have to deal with the words, phrases and grammar of Romans 9? Nevertheless, feel free to include any portion of scripture, apocryphal texts, the bhagavad gita, the Quran, or the Enuma Elish, or anything else you wish. Of course that will not demonstrate very much about the coherence of the internal content and the context of Romans 9. To demonstrate what Romans 9 is about you have to go verse by verse, even phrase by phrase in that context. You should be relating the development of Pauls argument and relating all portions of the context to the common theme you are proposing. Only then have you demonstrated your proposed theme.

LOL, shoot, Butch, you have not even made a concrete proposition of what you think the theme of Romans 9 actually is yet. The only thing you have done is denied that it is about salvation or individual election. That is not even proposing a common theme in Romans 9, it is just a statement about what it is not about. Then to prove your point you go all over the bible talking about the Arbahamic Covenant. When I say that the Abrahamic Covenant has soteriological issues in it, do you demonstrate that these issues are not in the text by showing the common theme of Romans 9? No. You just continue going all over the scriptrues talking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Also, I have already said that there are Jewish issues, covenant issues, and things like that in Romans 9. I have been long aware of the Covenants and promises to Israel in verses 3-5. In fact, I would go further then you and mention the issues concerning Israel in Romans 9:6 and the illustrative material in verses 7-13. But even though I would go further then you in relating the text to Israel does not prove that the text has no issues concerning soteriology. That would be to join you in your non-sequitur thinking. Please show who the covenant issues in Romans 9 do not relate to the salvation and election of Israel. If you wish to continue harping and harping on the Abrahamic Covenant, feel free, but it definitely does not prove anything about the internal theme of the material in Romans 9. All that does is show a relationship between the concepts of Covenant between different contexts. It does not one thing to demonstrate the internal message of Romans 9. Somehow, I do not think you understand the internal exegesis of a passage. Am I right? Do you do contextualization by relating the internal parts to one another? I was looking to discuss the context of Romans 9. Do you discuss the internal message of Romans 9 by discussion of 24 other texts? Do you establish the context of Romans 9 by a discussion of Malachi, Genesis, and other texts but only quote 3 verses in Romans 9? I honestly must admit that your method of discussing the context totally escapes me. The offer of my previous post is still valid. If you honestly admit you cannot relate the parts of Romans 9 internally, I will be happy to do it for you.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, it is painfully obvious that many parts of the scriptures relate to the Jewish people. There are even aspects of Romans 9 related to the Jew. I have never said otherwise. So in going all over the Bible (and oddly enough avoiding a verse by verse exegesis of Romans 9) you still have not even begun to relate all the parts of Romans 9 to a common theme. I mentioned some of the obvious contextual dividers. Did you take that and run with it and show how those dividers relate to your common theme? No. You ignored anything said about the internal workings of Romans 9 and just jump all over the bible from different passage to different passage. Why? So far, you seem willing to go to 40 or 50 verses outside Romans 9 and will mention only a few verses in the context of Romans 9. Why? Why don't you simply go verse by verse and show how each part of Romans 9 relates to your theme. You complain that to go verse by vese in Romans 9 would take to much work, but you have spent far more time in all these other verses that are not in Romans 9. Why? Would it not be a lot less work for you to actually go through Romans 9 and do as I ask? It is also becoming painfully obvious that you will not do as I asked because you cannot do as I asked. Butch, what your doing is not exegesis. You are not going through the text and demonstrating the context at all. All you are doing is showing that there are Jewish aspects in the passage that are related to other contexts. So when I ask about the context, your giving non-sequitur answers. Your not answering the question. Butch, answer the question by a verse by verse demonstration of how verses 1-24 relate to your common theme in the passage. Demonstrate that the passage is not about salvation in any way. So far, the only verses you mentioned in the text are verses 3-5. I will happily grant you that verses 3-5 have a Jewish theme in them, but when I raise issues that the Jewish covenants (and promises) relate to salvation, even in verses 3-5, you do not give a coherent answer even about those verses. I pointed out that Pauls statement in verse 3 has soteriological aspects in it when he says he would become anathema "from Christ" for the sake of his Jewish brethren, and did you even recognize those soteriological aspects? Butch, I will tell you what we can do. If you can be honest enough to admit you cannot go through the context and establish a theme by relating all parts to a common theme in a verse by verse way. If your willing to honestly admit that, then I will go through the context and do for you that exact thing I requested. I will even tell you the theme in advance. It is the "salvation and election of the Jewish remnant (1-23) and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the same salvation and election (24)." There it is Butch. Just a simple honest recognition on your part that you cannot relate Romans 9:1-24 together into a common theme and I will do it for you. I will not go all over the bible, I will stay right in the Chapter. I will do the work that you say is too much. Just be honest enough to tell me you do not know how to do that.

Are you serious Mondar? I not only covered Romans 9 I also took you to the passages that Paul is quoting in order to show what it is that Paul is addressing. What passages do you supposed I missed? I am quite familiar with the reformed tactic of "let's stay strictly within Romans 9." I've had that debate before. It seems to me that it's required in order to hold a reformed view of Romans 9. I believe that becomes quite clear when we actually look at the passages that Paul is quoting. When we look at Paul's quotes we can see that is argument is clearly not God choosing to save this one and not choosing to save that one.

Also, your denial of justification by faith alone in Galatians is rather huge. Maybe it is something I should not respond to in this thread, but you mentioned it and now I must respond because your view is a denial of the gospel. Galatians uses the term "justify" 6 times and in not one of those times does it speak of any other requirement other then faith. The old failed argument that requires the bible to say certain words "faith alone" is just not worth much. If I have a barrel of 100 apples, and each and every one of them is red, and there is a sign on the side of the barrel "red apples" you cannot say that there are yellow apples in it because the words "red alone" do not appear. The same with the concept of justification by faith alone. Those very word might not occur with regard to the doctrine of justification, but when every passage that mentions the doctrine of justification requires only faith, then faith is the only requirement. Now I am guessing you will go to one of two passages, either Romans 2 or James 2. Either passage would be in error. James 2 is the most common, but James 2:24 is not using the term "justified" to speak of the doctrine of justification, but rather goes back to verse 18 where the issue is faith. The question in verse 18 is this. Is the person without works justified in saying "I have faith." James answer is that he is not justified in the statement "I have faith." So then, the term justified in verse 24 is not speaking of justification by faith, but it is speaking of the justification of the claim of a man "I have faith." The man with works is justified in saying "I have faith." We could have another big debate on the doctrine of Justification by faith alone in James 2, but that should be a different thread.

I don't quibble over words, there is no teaching on justification by faith alone. Just because Galatians 3 speaks of justification without mentioning any other qualifiers doesn't mean its teaching justification alone. If I teach someone how to repair a carburetor I'm not denying that the car has tires. The background of Galatians 3 is faith vs works of the Mosaic Law, not faith vs good deeds. It's perfectly logical to see faith mentioned when that is what Paul is arguing for. However, his argument is specifically against the works of the Mosaic Law.

I don't even see how you came to that explanation in James 2. What does the "man" have to do with Abraham being justified by works?