What is Election?

[ivdavid]

Again, if you want to argue that it is God who literally gives us our thoughts and intentions and desires...

..it is in an inherent desire to either love and accept righteousness, or hate and reject it, when given the opportunity to choose (for now, in Adam, it has no choice).

What I see you saying is that one person chooses to obey the Gospel and the other chooses not to obey the Gospel, because the former person's choices(whenever applicable 'freely') are inclined towards righteousness while the latter person's aren't - and that is because the desires, thoughts generated from within the former person's individual nature are inclined towards righteousness while the latter person's aren't. Am I mistaken on this?

So, will you look at only step 6, ignoring the preceding steps and conclude that - "God shows mercy to whom He wills, without any consideration of their will"

is it fair to summarize your argument as being, "few are saved because God simply refuses to have mercy on them entirely at his own discretion, and not based on any input owned and provided by the individual themselves whatsoever?"

or will you look at all the steps and conclude that - "God shows sovereign mercy to whom He wills, having found all of them guilty by their own will".I'd go with the latter.

I summarize my argument myself into 2 points - one point that I wouldn't say and one that I would say - and you're asking me if it's "fair" to summarize it as the one that I wouldn't say? So, to your yes/no question - I'd have to reply, No.

The core issue here is seen in your parenthetical comment of "(for now, in Adam, it has no choice)". You have equated your concept of "freewill" alone with "choice" - while I have equated the "will" of man with "choice". Where you look at all in Adam and say, "they have no choice but to sin" - I say, "they have the choice and they continually choose to sin". Since you have constructed thus, their not having any choice - you infer that none of this can be considered as "human input" - while since I have constructed it as them continually exercising their choice unto sin, I infer that their "human input" has been considered all along. And since you believe God must base His judgement after factoring in human input - you construct a scenario of "freewill" that follows after all these continual sinning - while since I believe God is already factoring in human input, He can simply continue dealing with man, the same way concerning judgement, with no further requirement of new scenarios.

So, let's arrive at a common conclusion on this basic premise - else, every other argument that has this as its foundation, will remain inconclusive.

 

[ivdavid]

It's absolutely true now, as it was then, that if you do not obey God you can not walk in the life that he promises in this life to those who do obey him. But the church can only understand 'life' in terms of being condemned at the Judgment, or not being condemned at the Judgment.

This is your response to my Lev 18:5 reference. In essence, you're saying that this Lev 18:5 has nothing to do with man's Judgement, Condemnation or Salvation into the eternal Kingdom - but rather with his way of living out his life here and now.

But in light of this being the very Law of Works that condemns us under its curse - from which we are then redeemed by Christ - I will suggest that you reconsider your interpretation on this.

 

[Deborah13]

More on this...

This is actually the scripture that I think caused the Israelites to think the law was how they could be made righteous:

"25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”" (Deuteronomy 6:25 NIV)

Humble people know God is saying you'll be showing your righteousness by your obedience to the law (and realize they have no righteousness of their own), while proud and arrogant people will see this as God saying you will be made righteous by obeying the law and be deceived (by their own arrogance) that they have the righteousness God is looking for.


"32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32 NIV)
Feel free to explain how God can say he desires that man not die for choosing sin, at the same time that he also made them without the free will to do that.

I'm just scrolling through your posts in order. I'm confident my previous posts have answered this for you. It's not about the soil of men's heart being righteous, or unrighteous in and of itself. It's about whether or not the soil will receive and maintain a planting of God's righteousness in it.

The problem is you are trapped in the indoctrination in the church of what these terms mean and can't imagine that the Spirit can move in the hearts of both believers, and unbelievers. Even now some are thinking that is so utterly blasphemous because we are taught in the church that the activity of the Spirit is only the privilege of the already born again. But we see in scripture that it is necessary that the Spirit move first in a person's heart before they can come to Christ.

I know what you said. You said a man must be regenerated first before he can believe in Christ. I only used the word 'regeneration' because you did. Regeneration means 'born-again'.

We can learn more by looking at where we know they weren't born-again/ regenerated. Look at God talking to Paul through the power of the Holy Spirit before he was regenerated/saved in Acts 26:12-18 NIV. And look at the Ethiopian coming to faith in Christ because the Holy Spirit first ministered the truth to him of who Jesus is so he could then place his faith in Jesus in Acts 8:29-38. Do you think both Paul and the Ethiopian had to be born again first in order to hear the testimony of the Spirit? No, of course not. It was the testimony of the Holy Spirit giving them the faith to believe that then resulted in them getting born-again.



I've been saying that it's not about the syntax of the word 'faith', it's about the semantics of the word 'faith'--IOW, what the word 'faith' means in any one context it is used in.

James talks about 'faith' that is not salvic, and how that faith is mere knowing (the demons know 'God is One'), and is (obviously) not trusting in God for salvation. But you insist that 'faith' has to always and without exception mean 'regeneration/salvation'. And thus your argument that man must be regenerated first in order to know the gospel is true. I'm saying you have to know that the gospel is true first before you can place your trust in it and be saved. That prerequisite for 'knowing' is by definition 'faith':

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NIV)

Obviously, a person has to first be convicted that what the Holy Spirit is telling them is true before they can then place their trust in that truth and be saved as a result. You were......right? I was. That's only logical.



It's not about being 'in the Spirit', or 'in the flesh' when being subject to the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking to an unbeliever's heart. You're trapped by these little catch phrases and not considering that hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit is just a matter of...well...simply hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

But the church is conditioned to automatically assume that only regenerated/born-again people can hear the Holy Spirit.

Hi Jethro, you keep making statements like the one above. I pretty sure you don't mean the "church" as in "the body of Christ", do you? The only denomination that I know of that believes that one is regenerated/born again, before they believe and repent, is SOME of the Calvinists. You will not find this teaching in churches such as AoG, or other Pentecostals (not speaking here of charismatics). SPURGEON, did not believe that either. Here's a quote from Spurgeon and a link to the whole sermon.

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. " [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith]. C. Spurgeon
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm

In order to use the word regeneration to mean the Holy Spirit preparing hearts, they must change the meaning of the word regeneration (renewed) or they are saying that one is saved, before believing or even knowing their need to repent in order to be saved. Which is what I hear Spurgeon saying.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

But I showed you two examples, Paul and the Ethiopian, that show that simply is not true. Here we see John talking about this activity of the Holy Spirit wooing people to a salvation experience:

"It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.7 For there are three that testify:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son." (1 John 5:6-10 NIV)

We see that some reject the truth when it is shown to them to be the truth. They know it's the truth but choose to not retain that truth. But you are, in effect, saying they can only know it's the truth if they are first born-again. That's not what I see. I see God showing men the truth SO they can be born-again.

 

[ivdavid]

We can learn more by looking at where we know they weren't born-again/ regenerated.

What is the sign or expected observation of one being born-again/regenerated, by which we can "know" that he is indeed born-again at that point in time? How are you able to determine and "know" when these men were born-again and when they weren't?

Do you think both Paul and the Ethiopian had to be born again first in order to hear the testimony of the Spirit?

1Cor 2:14 - these men no longer could be natural men in order to receive(at least with ears that can hear etc.) the testimony of the Spirit - and if they have been transformed from what they were as "natural" men to "spiritual" men now, I would think the answer to your question would be Yes.

I've been saying that it's not about the syntax of the word 'faith', it's about the semantics of the word 'faith'...

..That prerequisite for 'knowing' is by definition 'faith':

Wasn't I dealing with semantics when I shared here what I held to be working definitions of "believing", "believing [in/upon]" and "faith"? Until Biblically proven otherwise, I see no need to alter my working definitions - for which you'd have to show me a passage in Scripture that's not consistent with my working definitions. On my part, I've decided not to impose my definitions on you - I shall adopt your own usage in our discussions. As to Heb 11:1, let me simply assert that it's not the definition of faith - it's only the description of faith. But I'm not keen on trying to prove it here - because that could involve greek syntax-semantic relations and I don't really think all that is necessary now for this discussion to proceed. But if you make this out to be a central point in our discussion, then I shall present material on that. Until then, I simply choose to pass on this.

Obviously, a person has to first be convicted that what the Holy Spirit is telling them is true before they can then place their trust in that truth and be saved as a result.

I have never denied any of this - I believe all of the above. But to continue - obviously, a hardened heart cannot receive this conviction - for which purpose it requires replacement with a new heart that can receive such conviction[Eze 36:26] - which obviously has to happen before the conviction. Logical?

We see that some reject the truth when it is shown to them to be the truth. They know it's the truth but choose to not retain that truth. But you are, in effect, saying they can only know it's the truth if they are first born-again.

Where am I saying that? How can I possibly defend a position which I myself don't hold - but which you put me in by imposing your beliefs and definitions on? I am saying that one can "have faith" / "believe in Christ" only if they are first born-again, yes - but I do Not hold "faith" to be the same as "knowing" the truth, as you are presuming of me here - hence, I am Not saying that man can "know" / "become aware of the truth presented" only if he is first born-again.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What I see you saying is that one person chooses to obey the Gospel and the other chooses not to obey the Gospel, because the former person's choices(whenever applicable 'freely') are inclined towards righteousness while the latter person's aren't - and that is because the desires, thoughts generated from within the former person's individual nature are inclined towards righteousness while the latter person's aren't. Am I mistaken on this?

Yes, you are mistaken.

Before Christ, the thoughts and inclinations of every person are controlled by unrighteousness. It isn't until the farmer starts cultivating the gospel in a person that we find out if the heart of that person is willing to receive and maintain the truths of the kingdom, or not, get saved by those truths, and then begin to grow up into righteous thoughts and inclinations.

The core issue here is seen in your parenthetical comment of "(for now, in Adam, it has no choice)". You have equated your concept of "freewill" alone with "choice" - while I have equated the "will" of man with "choice". Where you look at all in Adam and say, "they have no choice but to sin" - I say, "they have the choice and they continually choose to sin". Since you have constructed thus, their not having any choice - you infer that none of this can be considered as "human input" - while since I have constructed it as them continually exercising their choice unto sin, I infer that their "human input" has been considered all along. And since you believe God must base His judgement after factoring in human input - you construct a scenario of "freewill" that follows after all these continual sinning - while since I believe God is already factoring in human input, He can simply continue dealing with man, the same way concerning judgement, with no further requirement of new scenarios.

So, let's arrive at a common conclusion on this basic premise - else, every other argument that has this as its foundation, will remain inconclusive.

I guess you're just going to have to state your POV concerning election/freewill/predestination in a clear and easily understood way before I can discuss it any further with you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi Jethro, you keep making statements like the one above. I pretty sure you don't mean the "church" as in "the body of Christ", do you?

I'm speaking generally of the church, the general collection of evangelical believers, and the prevailing doctrines and thought that most seem to subscribe to.

The only denomination that I know of that believes that one is regenerated/born again, before they believe and repent, is SOME of the Calvinists. You will not find this teaching in churches such as AoG, or other Pentecostals (not speaking here of charismatics). SPURGEON, did not believe that either. Here's a quote from Spurgeon and a link to the whole sermon.

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. " [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith]. C. Spurgeon
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm

Well, I'm definitely in agreement with Spurgeon.

As an official doctrine, yes, I can see it being a rather isolated doctrine.

In order to use the word regeneration to mean the Holy Spirit preparing hearts, they must change the meaning of the word regeneration (renewed) or they are saying that one is saved, before believing or even knowing their need to repent in order to be saved. Which is what I hear Spurgeon saying.

As far as generalities go, I'd say most in the church understand 'regeneration' as being born-again, wouldn't you?

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

I had a great Thanksgiving, thank you.

This morning, I had ham for breakfast, turkey for lunch, ham for mid afternoon snack, and then more ham for dinner.


I'd like to see this thread get more focused on what really matters in election--whether or not election means God purposely controls, apart from the will of the person, who can believe, and who can not.

IMO, the fundamental potential for any one human heart to accept the gospel belongs to the person themselves, not God who creates it that way, or doesn't create it that way, in a predetermined way.

 

[ivdavid]

one person chooses to obey the Gospel and the other chooses not to obey the Gospel, because ....

Yes, you are mistaken.

Before Christ, the thoughts and inclinations of every person are controlled by unrighteousness. It isn't until the farmer starts cultivating the gospel .....

Am I not referring to the Gospel alone here? So again, with respect to man's choice concerning the Gospel, am I mistaken on anything?

I guess you're just going to have to state your POV concerning election/freewill/predestination in a clear and easily understood way before I can discuss it any further with you.

I already did and have referenced it earlier too. Anyway, here's the post again - this was my first on this thread.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm speaking generally of the church, the general collection of evangelical believers, and the prevailing doctrines and thought that most seem to subscribe to.

Well, I'm definitely in agreement with Spurgeon.

Well I don't know if you read the whole sermon, but I have had three Calvinists tell me that Spurgeon did mean what he clearly said. One Calvinist told me he was telling preachers they should be preaching to all people, yad yad. Say what? He preaching to a church full of lay man not preachers.

There are so many people who love Spurgeon's writings from both sides of the proverbially fence. If I were a Calvinist I would be wondering why, don't ya' think. Maybe it was because, he made sense so much of the time, even to non-Calvinists.

The problem all starts with the Sovereignty of God, and what they say the Sovereign God does, wills, ordains. They say it is not the will of God that all men be saved. Because if it was, they would all be saved. When you ask if God commands something is that His will? Most of the time you will not get a straight answer. Because the scripture says that God is commanding all men to repent. And if you do they will say, God doesn't mean ALL men only some men from each nation, race, etc.

After going a couple rounds I always feel like maybe I have a God who doesn't say what He means, so how can I know that anything He said is what He meant.

As an official doctrine, yes, I can see it being a rather isolated doctrine.

As far as generalities go, I'd say most in the church understand 'regeneration' as being born-again, wouldn't you?

I had a great Thanksgiving, thank you.

This morning, I had ham for breakfast, turkey for lunch, ham for mid afternoon snack, and then more ham for dinner.

I'd like to see this thread get more focused on what really matters in election--whether or not election means God purposely controls, apart from the will of the person, who can believe, and who can not.

IMO, the fundamental potential for any one human heart to accept the gospel belongs to the person themselves, not God who creates it that way, or doesn't create it that way, in a predetermined way.

 

[ivdavid]

The problem all starts with the Sovereignty of God, and what they say the Sovereign God does, wills, ordains.

I agree that the problem stretches there - but it all starts with attributing due credit, and its corresponding glory, to the respective factors in one's salvation. Did the flesh(self-nature) play even the slightest causative role in one's salvation - God forbid. And here begin the arguments and the various theological positions.

They say it is not the will of God that all men be saved.

By "will", do you mean God's desires - or do you mean God's final purposed choice? I would deny the above in the former sense and agree to it in the latter sense.

When you ask if God commands something is that His will?

Yes. It is always God's desire that what He commands be obeyed. And He purposes His choices of action depending on the outcome of the obedience/disobedience to such commands of His.

the scripture says that God is commanding all men to repent.

Yes, every single created man in the flesh.

 

[mondar]

Butch5, Well, its time for me to fulfill a promise. I repeatedly asked you to do something that was only logical. You make claims about Romans 9, but refused to go through Romans 9 verse by verse and demonstrate the internal consistency of the chapter around your proposed theme. Now, I will do that very thing.

RELATIONSHIP WITH CHAPTER 8
Rom 8:28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
In this section, there is no possibility of it being anything other then an order of salvation. Note that each and every group of people is the same. The group of people God foreknew was not the whole world, but God foreknew those to be conformed to the image of the Son so that the Son would be the first born. The son would be the head of the group. This is the saved of all generations. Only this group is foreknown, and only this group is called, and only this group is justified. Justification is one of the great themes of Romans. In Romans it is the "Gospel" (Romans 1:16). This is the same topic that Paul uses to continue into Romans 9.

ROMANS 9:1-5
In the first 5 verses, there is no introduction of any theme or changes from Romans 8. Paul continues talking about salvation, but introduces his evangelistic fervor for his own nation.

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit,
Paul does not introduce his subject but make an issue of how important this subject is to himself. He is so forceful, that he says the same thing in three different ways. It is the truth, it is not a lie, and the HS is his witness. Obviously the statements to come are important.

Rom 9:2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.
Paul tells us the drama of his spiritual quest. This heart pain is with him where ever he goes and at all times.

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Paul says all the pain is about this patriotic love of his countrymen, the Jews. Being a gentile, I wonder how he felt about Gentiles? He was the apostle to the Gentiles, yet he had this powerful evangelistic desire for the Jew. This patriotic evangelistic fervor was so great, that Paul says he would have become anathema from Christ. One who is anathema from Christ is one who receives no benefits from Christ. This word "anathema from Christ" cannot be seen in any other way other then relating to his salvation. So then, the topic from the beginning of the text relates to salvation. Specifically the salvation of Jewish people; the salvation of Israel, the brethren of Paul. To this point, there is not hint of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Rom 9:4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Butch5, I have seen people quote verses 3 to 5 over and over and ignore the rest of the Chapter repeatedly. The interesting thing, is that this list of Israelite blessings is not the subject of the Chapter. Paul does not introduce his topic until verse 6. Also, why make the Abrahamic Covenant the theme of these verses when it is not even mentioned. The term "covenants" is plural, not singular. Paul obviously has in mind all the biblical covenants here and not just one certain covenant. Paul was listing each and every blessing to Israel. Why do this? Why make such a list? The answer to me seems obvious, it is to mark the special place of Israel in Human history. Paul did the same thing back in Romans 3:1-2 .
Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.
The advantage of the Jew was that they were a suppository of revelation. The list in Romans 9:4-5 is about the advantage of the Jew. As a nation they were the suppository of revelation. Yes, the Abrahamic Covenant was one of the many aspects of revelation Paul was talking about being an advantage to the Jew. When people say that the passage is "about the Abrahamic Covenant" I cannot completely deny that, but of course it is a statement that is made to side tract the real issues of verses 4-5 that the Jew had an advantage in so many more ways beyond the Abrahamic Covenant. So then, the topic is not about the Abrahamic Covenant, but remotely includes the Abrahamic Covenant along with a multitude of other concepts as the "advantage of the Jew." So then, it the heart of the passage that is quoted by Abrahamic Covenant people, they miss the point.


THE MAJOR TOPIC ----- ROMANS
To not loose my post due to character limitations, I will make a post for each major section of Romans 9:1-24.

 

[mondar]

MAJOR TOPIC ------ Romans 9:6
Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
* Lets take this in two parts. First, Paul says it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. To actually understand what Paul is saying, this is a key phrase. If you do not get this phrase, you do not get Romans 9. If you do not get this phrase, you will not understand what Romans 9 is saying about election. Now did not Paul just finish two verses on the special blessings upon Israel? He mentioned things like the giving of the law. Gentiles worshiped in the temple, but they had to worship from further away from the Holy of Holies in the court of the Gentiles. Israel had the blessing of being closer to the Holy of Holies when they had temple worship. Of course that is not a direct Abrahamic issue either, but it was important to the list. But blessing would have nothing to do with how the word of God would come to nothing. Even the plurality of the word "covenants" in verses 4-5 do not tell us how the word of God would come to nothing. Remember, it is the term covenants, not the words "Abrahamic Covenant." There are non-soterological aspects to the covenants. The promise not to destroy the world by water had nothing to do with salvation. The land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant is also a non-soteriological promise. But how would any of the non-soteriological promises have anything whatsoever to do with the word of God coming to nothing. God can still literally fulfill those promises. When Paul speaks of the word of God coming to nothing, he is speaking of the salvific aspects of those promises.

So then, even in this key phrase, Paul is speaking of salvation. Paul introduced salvation as the topic in verse 3, and now in the key verse in verse 6, he continues speaking of salvation. Yes, specifically the salvation of the Jew.

* Now for the 2nd part of the verse. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
I am going to complain that so many people (both reformed and non-reformed) take the term "Israel" in an overly simplistic way. I take the position that the term "Israel" is used in many different ways in the scriptures and this very verse is strong support. To make sense of this phrase one must realize the term "Israel" is used in two different ways. This is a difficult verse to explain because it stretches the use of language. Paul is saying that there are two different Israels. One we can call "genetic Israel." I would like to call the other Israel "spiritual Israel" but that brings into the discussion preconceived ideas. Lets call the other group, "saved Israel." Now let me redo Pauls statement using that terminology to distinguish between the two Israels.
"for they are not all "Saved" Israel, that are of "Genetic" Israel. Saved Israel and Genetic Israel are not two different groups of people, but neither are they the same. Some Israelites are saved, others are not. Both groups are completely genetic Israelites, but the one group contains only saved genetic Israelites, and that it the point Paul is making. The other group has both saved and unsaved genetic Israelites.

So then, which of these two Israel's are the suppository of revelation and blessings? If the blessings were to genetic Israel (saved and unsaved) then the promises of God came to nothing. However, the blessings of verses 4-5 belong not to genetic Israel, but to saved Israel.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THIS CONCEPT Romans 9:7-13
Now the next section merely serves to illustrate the main point in verse 6. Paul is going to give two illustrations. One of them relates to Abraham's children, Isaac and Ishmael. The other illustration is going to be the children of Isaac, Jacob and Esau. The point of the two illustrations is to show that within a genetic family, one can be elected to salvation and all the blessings pertaining to salvation, and the other is not saved even though he is of the same "flesh" (or genetically related).

Please notice that the illustrations do not apply directly to the issue of the Abrahamic Covenant, but only indirectly. A very important point would be to ask was Esau circumcised? As a member of the Abrahamic seed, the answer would be "YES." All fleshly genetic Israelites were circumcised. Yet not all genetic and circumcised Israelites inherited the promises, the covenants, the adoption, etc.

Rom 9:7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
This is a statement of the principle in verse 6 when applied to the children of Abraham. The first illustration would of course be Ishmael, Isaac, and the sons of Keturah. Out of all those children, all were under the Abrahamic Covenant in some way. Abraham was the "Father of many nations." His children because nations. All would have been circumcised. Of course only Isaac would carry the promises, the covenants, the blessings, the adoption, and only Isaac would be saved. Remember the introducion, and how Paul spoke of giving up his own salvation for the sake of his countrymen.

Rom 9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.
This is the conclusion Paul draws from the previous verse. Notice again the two groups. Within the "Children of the flesh" there are some that are the "Children of God." The point is that Isaac was the child of God, and the rest were not children of God, but only Children of Abraham. Only those who were children of God, or children of Promise are counted or reckoned as the seed of Abraham.

Now let me here stop and note the difference in contexts between Romans 9 and Galatians. In Galatians the Gentiles are children of Abraham by faith. In Romans it is speaking of children of flesh (Jews) who are children of Abraham. My point in a way is irrevelant because when Paul gets to verse 24, he is going to turn Romans 9 upside down and say that the whole thing actually applies to Gentiles anyway. Nevertheless, to keep the context of Romans 9 clear, we must qualify that up until this verse, Paul is still only talking about "fleshly" or genetic Jews. Gentiles are not the suppository of Revelation. In the OT, we had to worship behind the Jew, but now of course Ephesians 2 speaks of the middle wall of partition being broken down and how the two are made one. So after Pentacost, there is neither Jew nor greek, bond nor free. So then, there is yet a 3ird Israel not mentioned in this context, that of the Jewish-Gentile, post Pentecost Church. Paul is here merely contrasting saved genetic Israel, with
Genetic Israel.

 

[mondar]

cont....
Rom 9:9 For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

Paul spoke of promises in Romans 9:4-5 and here illustrates the kind of promises, but also directly illustrates the principle in verse 6 and how the promises apply to the saved or elect seed of Israel. The son is of course Isaac.


Rom 9:10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac -

In rapid order Paul switches to the promise to Rebecca who had Jacob and Esau. This is still an illustration of the principle in verse 6 of a saved genetic Israel within a genetic Israel. From verse 7 on, it is illustrations of the principle in verse 6.


Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,

OK, what "election" could Paul be talking about up to this point? Is this merely an election to non-salvific things such as land? Paul is not talking about salvation at all when he uses the term "election" here? Then how could he possibly be speaking of salvation in verse 3. How could Paul say that the "word of God came to nothing" in verse 6? Is that all Elect Jews were promised in the list in verses 4-5, just land and a few other non-salvific promises? Butch5, if words mean anything, and they do, then this election obviously includes promises of salvation to the remnant of Jews who are chosen to receive all the blessings in verse 4-5. If you deny that the context of the word "according to election might stand" here exclude redemptive promises, then there are no possible words that could convince you that the election in Romans 9 includes salvific promises. The very phrase "might stand" throws the context back to verse 6 and the phrase "But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought." The word of God either stands or comes to nothing. One or the other. So let me ask does the word of God include issues of salvation?


Let me ask another question, does salvation itself have nothing to do with anything we do "good or bad?" Tell me, is faith good or bad? Faith is good. Faith is very good. Faith is very very very very good. Hebrews 11:6 tells us that faith pleases God. Election is then not based upon foreseen faith. WOW, this would be the perfect place for Paul to make a statement like that. But rather then say that election is based upon foreseen faith, he says the opposite. It is not what we have done that causes our election, it is simply the will of a sovereign God. Paul says election is "of him that calleth." Election is not of our foreseen faith, then it would at least be partially of us. The verse states that election is "of him that calleth." Butch5, tell me, is their any possible language that Paul could have used to make this even more air tight? What do you think the word "calleth" refers to? You would have to make something bizarre up concerning that word. Maybe it is the call of Israel back to the land? Maybe its the call of Abraham from Mesopotamia? Is that what you think Paul is talking about when he says "calleth." -----> In this who part of Romans 9, Paul is illustrating the idea of a saved genetic Israel within Genetic Israel. Are you telling me that some of the Israelites that are being "called" are unsaved? Are you saying that this election has nothing to do with some Israelites being saved? Really? This context has nothing to do with Romans 8:28-30 and the justification, and glorification in that text? Are you telling me that when Paul in verse 24 says that this all applies to Gentiles, that we too are being called to the land of Israel? We like Abraham are called from the Land of Mesopotamia? Of course I would reject such non-literal allegorical use of language. No, the verses speak of the promises of the scriptures, the word of God. The calling mentioned is unto salvation.



Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Again, Paul returns to the promises. This is merely again a demonstration of individual Jewish election within the entire genetic nation. Esau would serve Jacob. While in the OT context, it is true this was about some national promises, Paul is not using this to say anything about the Edomites vs the Israelites. That would have nothing at all to do with the concept of an Israel within Genetic Israel as found in verse 6. Remember, this section is about illustrating the principles in verse 6 about genetic Israel. Once that is kept in mind, it is impossible to see this verse as relating to the OT national issues. Certainly, the OT contexts speak of those national issues, but this context is not about national issues of Edom vs Israel. It is about how God can elect some Israelites, and not elect all Israelites. This has nothing to do with Edom. The only reason Esau is mentioned is because he too was a genetic son of Isaac. He was related genetically to Isaac as an individual. So then, Paul's motive for using this as an illustration has nothing to do with national issues of the later Edomites. It is about Esau's salvation.



Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

Anyone who follows the Pauls argument in this passage will already know that his issue is about individual Jews within the genetic group of Israel. Again, as in the previous verse, Paul is not quoting this to demonstrate something about national issues of Israel vs Edom, he is speaking of God salvific hatred for Esau as a person. God loves the whole world. He shows common grace to all men everywhere by giving men time to repent. He causes the rain to come upon unjust and just alike. But when it comes to salvation, he foreknew the elect (intimately knew them like Adam loved and knew Eve). The term foreknowledge speaks of a special love. God did not foreknow Esau. The idea of Foreknowledge has nothing to do with looking into the future to see faith. But that is another issue. Here, God's hatred of Esau is merely within a salvific context. God did not want to save Esau. I love all mankind, but I love them with a love that is very different then that which I love my wife with. I would die in her place. I would not die for all men everywhere. So God loves Esau as he loves all men everywhere, but when it comes to saving Esau, he hated Esau.

 

[mondar]

Here comes the clincher. In the next section Paul asks rhetorical questions based upon his concept of a genetic spiritual Israel within genetic Israel. Two rhetorical questions are asked. Here is the first.

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Is this idea of election of a few within Israel righteous? Pauls answer is given in the next verse.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
Of course this is quoted from Exodus. It speaks of the character of God. This is why the whole conversation that we are having is so critical. Without understanding the sovereignty of God in salvation, one cannot know the merciful character of God as one should. Now if this context and this election were merely about land promises, why would Paul go to such drama and call it "mercy?" I, being a gentile, do not feel I ever had land promises given to me from God. You know what? I do not feel God has been less merciful to me. I am a sinner and know what I deserve, and God, being merciful, saved me throught the shed blood of Christ. Christ did it all. That is mercy! God elects or chooses whom he will have mercy upon. This passage relates to the very core character of God. This, and especially this verse, is speaking of salvation. It is in the core character of God to jealously guard his sovereignty in all aspects of his creation, and especially with regard to salvation. He, and he alone, chooses whom he will have mercy upon.

Tell me, does God have to try to save all men equally? Would that be unrighteous of God to save some and not make that same effort to save others? If God is trying to save all men equally, then he did a very bad job. Then God either is not all powerful, or he gave up his sovereign status as omnipotent. If God is trying to save all men equally, then he cannot have "mercy upon whom I have mercy." If God gave up his sovereignty to man by bestowing free will upon him, then this verse would read... "I will have mercy upon those who by an act of their free will choose me." That would be wierd ehh? The text is a claim to Gods sovereignty in mans salvation. He will have mercy upon those whom he chooses or elects himself.

When I think of God's mercy, I just cannot image that the issue is some non-salvific promise. The election spoke of in verse 11 is not about some non-salvific promise. The whole context ooozes with issues concerning salvation.

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
Now if this is true that God chooses who he will mercy (it is actually a verb in greek in verse 15), then is it not obvious that the mercy comes not through the will of the recipient. We get mercy because of the will of God. When people read my words here, they will hate what I am saying. But please look at the text. What does the pharse " it is not of him that willeth." What is the "it." The anticedent of the word "it" goes back to verse 15 and the word "mercy." The text is astonishing. So then, I can beg for mercy all I want and it does not matter to God? God chooses whom to have mercy on? It is nothing to do with my will, or my desire for mercy? Yeah, as much as we hate what the text says, we cannot change it. Mercy is about what God decides, not man. We run, we will, but mercy is Gods sovereign choice.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Now here the issue is about Gods elective salvation again. If it were about nations, then Paul should be speaking of Egypt. He is speaking of hardening Pharaoh, not Egypt.

Well, so much could be said about "hardening." Lots and lots. This is the double predestination issue. Of course so many misrepresent that issues as thought reformed people equate Gods action in election and hardening as the same. We do not. God is very active in his election of the saved, but when he hardened Pharaoh, he did that merely by "raising him up." That is not a sinful action on the part of God, he can raise up anyone to power he chooses. Of course he full well knows the evil in Pharaoh's heart and that by giving him political power he gives Pharaoh's heart a greater ability at rebellion.

 

[mondar]

Well, if you want me to continue with the context, let me know, I will quit for now.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

After going a couple rounds I always feel like maybe I have a God who doesn't say what He means, so how can I know that anything He said is what He meant.

Lol, me too.

But I admit I used to push that kind of theology about God, too, until a struggling believer/ unbeliever (don't know which they were) confronted me about it and I could see how stupid and frustrating that is to those trying to learn about God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree that the problem stretches there - but it all starts with attributing due credit, and its corresponding glory, to the respective factors in one's salvation. Did the flesh(self-nature) play even the slightest causative role in one's salvation - God forbid.

What are you afraid of in giving man credit for receiving the righteousness of Christ when given the choice to choose? Is that somehow a work that can't justify? If so, show me where Paul says that. I see where that is EXACTLY the thing that justifies. As I've been saying, this whole thing really comes down to a gross and widespread misunderstanding of Paul's faith/works teaching in the Bible that presently grips the church.

Yes. It is always God's desire that what He commands be obeyed. And He purposes His choices of action depending on the outcome of the obedience/disobedience to such commands of His.

Reconcile that, then, to this:

"I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32 NIV)

If I understand what you're saying, God picked a will and a purpose that clearly is not in line with the outcome. Empirically your theology simply doesn't hold up. Even the Bible itself tells us that in the end, more will happen not in line with his will than what he does will in this regard.

I don't think we need to project our human sense of pride onto God by somehow making it look like God always gets what he wants. We're not doing him a favor when we do that. As I found out myself, it actually makes God look worse in the eyes of unbelievers, not better.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...regenerated i.e. being born from above.

I didn't think I had misunderstood what you said before.

 

[ivdavid]

Did the flesh(self-nature) play even the slightest causative role in one's salvation - God forbid.

What are you afraid of in giving man credit for receiving the righteousness of Christ when given the choice to choose? Is that somehow a work that can't justify?

As I've stated in previous posts, I have absolutely no issues with man choosing to receive the righteousness of Christ - my only issue is that such believing must not be attributed to the flesh(self-nature) - for then, I am indeed afraid of contradicting God's Word [Rom 8:7-8, John 6:63, Gal 5:17]

Reconcile that, then, to this:

God desires all men to repent and live - and commands them so. God purposes that if the outcome is man not obeying His commands, then such a man shall be judged guilty and be brought under condemnation - which gives absolutely no pleasure to God. Having the outcome of all men guilty, God desires to show forth His sovereign mercy - and purposes it through an election of grace. What needs reconciliation here?

If I understand what you're saying, God picked a will and a purpose that clearly is not in line with the outcome. Empirically your theology simply doesn't hold up. Even the Bible itself tells us that in the end, more will happen not in line with his will than what he does will in this regard.

God can have multiple valid desires - and the chief of them is what He purposes to be fulfilled - and that He always does get the way He wants. It's not a human projection, just His glory of wisdom and power.

I didn't think I had misunderstood what you said before.

I'm sorry I didn't understand what you're asking here.

 

[Deborah13]

What are you afraid of in giving man credit for receiving the righteousness of Christ when given the choice to choose? Is that somehow a work that can't justify? If so, show me where Paul says that. I see where that is EXACTLY the thing that justifies. As I've been saying, this whole thing really comes down to a gross and widespread misunderstanding of Paul's faith/works teaching in the Bible that presently grips the church.



Reconcile that, then, to this:

"I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32 NIV)

If I understand what you're saying, God picked a will and a purpose that clearly is not in line with the outcome. Empirically your theology simply doesn't hold up. Even the Bible itself tells us that in the end, more will happen not in line with his will than what he does will in this regard.

I don't think we need to project our human sense of pride onto God by somehow making it look like God always gets what he wants. We're not doing him a favor when we do that. As I found out myself, it actually makes God look worse in the eyes of unbelievers, not better.

I think maybe I have a different perceptive on God's will. I think, that God always gets His will. But when we put the different scriptures together and say what is God's will, there can be layers to that will. What I mean by that is, God says He wants all men to repent and live, but there can be a condition that is incorporated into that will. That men come to Him by responding to His goodness. By His grace, the Holy Spirit convicts, leads, draws, etc. and His Word is alive and filled with His grace, all these things teaching us of the goodness of God. So is God's will just that all repent and live? Or is it God's will that all men repent and live, by believing His Word is the truth? Man begins at this initial belief and that belief should get stronger as time goes by.
Abraham was found righteous because he believed God.
Gen_15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

As I've stated in previous posts, I have absolutely no issues with man choosing to receive the righteousness of Christ - my only issue is that such believing must not be attributed to the flesh(self-nature) - for then, I am indeed afraid of contradicting God's Word [Rom 8:7-8, John 6:63, Gal 5:17]

I say just attribute it to the man himself, then, since it is not a matter of being 'in the flesh', or being 'in the Spirit' as we like to throw those terms around.

It's obviously a decision influenced by the Spirit while a person is still in the condemnation of their sins. Why do we have to try to pin down a label for it? This is what I detest about how the church handles theological matters. Why do we have to label and categorize everything instead of just saying the way something is?

When we label and categorize we end up missing the truth in our misguided attempts to contain everything in the artificial boundaries of labels, and categories, and definitions we shouldn't have made in the first place. This is why I don't read commentaries, but prefer to simply read the scriptures. Man seems to major in over-thinking and compartmentalizing things and using an abundance of words which just end up missing the truth and making it all the harder to find.

God desires all men to repent and live - and commands them so. God purposes that if the outcome is man not obeying His commands, then such a man shall be judged guilty and be brought under condemnation - which gives absolutely no pleasure to God. Having the outcome of all men guilty, God desires to show forth His sovereign mercy - and purposes it through an election of grace. What needs reconciliation here?

The fact that God's desire and will, (that no man die) is simply not fulfilled--not even close--in this age, as if that makes God impotent and weak in some way. That's how man sees God's will being thwarted (in that it is not fulfilled to the utmost), and so the church in it's misguided attempt to protect the greatness of God makes it appear through creative interpretation of scripture that his will and desire were not really inhibited in this world because his will wasn't really what he said it was. It's a misguided transference of man's propensity for pride to God's character.

God can still be great, and get all the glory, even if, against his perfect will and intention, most men will not repent and will die in the stubbornness of their own decision to do so.

God can have multiple valid desires - and the chief of them is what He purposes to be fulfilled - and that He always does get the way He wants. It's not a human projection, just His glory of wisdom and power.

Show me how God got what he wants in seeing all mankind saved, not destroyed, without twisting the scriptures to make it appear that the few that do get saved was really his intent and purpose all along, not the many he said he wants to see get saved.

God is not an American politician who's success is based on how many things he wants he is able to achieve. Let's stop projecting our human pride onto God and let the truth be the truth--which is God would like all men to be saved, not destroyed, but it's simply not going to end up that way. That's not a reflection on the weakness of God. It's a reflection of the pride, and arrogance, and stubbornness of mankind.

I'm sorry I didn't understand what you're asking here.

I 'm not asking anything.

I'm pointing out that I was not wrong that you were equating 'regeneration' with being 'born again'. That's all.