PDA

View Full Version : Predestination Quick Questions



Pages : [1] 2

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 08:59 PM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lol


So, how do you guys reconcile this information:

God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell

this is why i believe in double predestination

opinions? scriptures?

Amos_with_goats
Dec 19th 2008, 09:05 PM
i believe in double predestination

We get that from the half a dozen threads you have started on this same topic in the last couple days. :spin:

Can He make a rock that he can not move? I believe that He can... and He can move it. :saint:

Can He give free will, and still know what we will choose?

I believe so... my Lord is big enough. :pp

The danger with the doctrine of predestination is that if we believe it, there is nothing we are to really be concerned with doing. Many churches don't believe in or practice evangelism... simply because they believe they do not have to.

Is there truth within Calvinism? Sure. Most doctrines of men contain truth.... just not the entire Truth.

Amos_with_goats
Dec 19th 2008, 09:12 PM
http://bibleforums.org/images/icons/icon2.gif Ever heard of the 'Frozen Chosen'?

Of course the Calvinist answer to that is the reason we practice the 'great commission' is to be obedient to scripture. The problem is that obedience is not really a big Hallmark of the western Church.

The idea of being 'under grace' is accurate in it's scriptural context. The problem is that in the context of the flesh we tend to do what we see as necessary.

While we are to see 'sinners in the hands of....' we see that it really makes no difference.... just as the adversary would have us to do.

Are there scriptures to support both sides of the 'argument'? Of course, the problem is that scripture does not argue against it's self. Only men do that.

Scripture asks us to choose.... Calvinism (or applied hyper Calvinism) says that it does not matter what you choose.

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 09:14 PM
We get that from the half a dozen threads you have started on this same topic in the last couple days. :spin:

Can He make a rock that he can not move? I believe that He can... and He can move it. :saint:

Can He give free will, and still know what we will choose?

I believe so... my Lord is big enough. :pp

The danger with the doctrine of predestination is that if we believe it, there is nothing we are to really be concerned with doing. Many churches don't believe in or practice evangelism... simply because they believe they do not have to.

Is there truth within Calvinism? Sure. Most doctrines of men contain truth.... just not the entire Truth.


yeah, i agree, i guess i just have this itch that wants to know THE FULL TRUTH haha but i just can't seem to scratch it lol. but actually because o the doctrine of predestination i feel safe in the hands of God. not meaning i can live however i want but also not meaning people don't ever have to repent and believe, however i think predestination helps to pinpoint the author and finisher of our faith. Where our faith comes from, why we have it, why we can be assured of our perserverance

but youre right perhaps i shouldnt have posted this as a new thread lol

Friend of I AM
Dec 19th 2008, 09:24 PM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lol


So, how do you guys reconcile this information:

God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell

this is why i believe in double predestination

opinions? scriptures?

We see that David was predestined to be King by God..But when David slept with Bathsheba and killed Yuria the Hitite, the house of David experienced all sorts of turmoil during his reign due to this sin. David even goes on in Psalms to state the following...

Psalms 89:38-42But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground. Thou hast broken down all his hedges; thou hast brought his strong holds to ruin. All that pass by the way spoil him: he is a reproach to his neighbours. Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice.


We see that David's covenant was for a time revoked by God, due to his actions..God at some point forgave David due to his repentance..and restated his covenant with him. Thus to answer your question, God does pre-ordain men to be in various positions during their lives..I'm not sure how this works in entirety with free-will though. I think there are still many choices one can make that can make God change his mind regarding a decision he has made regarding any individual. Thus one needs to be very careful in preaching any type of pre-ordainment doctrine...as pre-ordainment doesn't give one a free ride and ticket to wickedness..or preclude God from changing his mind about something he has promised due to a man's actions.

God bless in Christian Love,Stephen

Amos_with_goats
Dec 19th 2008, 09:24 PM
i shouldnt have posted this as a new thread lol

I am sorry, I did not mean it like that. I have seen this discussion progress where both sides dig in in opposition and look for the scriptures that argue against the other position... and become fruitless.

IMHO The same thing happens with those grace / law discussions. There is no opposition of scripture to scripture. The idea that our free will opposes the Lord's knowledge of what we will choose is the problem... they are 2 sides of the same coin. Much like grace and the law are. Both sides are necessary if we are to understand the scripture.

Blessings, and peace :hug:

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 09:27 PM
i also think calvinism is looking at things frrom the perspective of the future.

in the future, when we are in heaven and look back, i think we will see it was God who chose us and brought us to Himself

I greatly disagree with hyper-calvinism, which says we shouldn't even preach the gospel! thats wacky haha

but i do believe it takes the weight off our shoulders to force people to convert.

We preach the gospel and then it is the Holy Spirit working through the Word that does the inside job.

I believe in the great commission, we are like john the baotist was, to be witnesses to the light

TrustingFollower
Dec 19th 2008, 09:29 PM
Simple question I would like you to answer from the reformed view point. Why did God have to reconcile those that he chose in advance? If those that were predestined from before the foundation of the world belong to God then there would be no need to be reconciled back to Him. So why the need of having to be reconciled?

RogerW
Dec 19th 2008, 09:37 PM
Simple question I would like you to answer from the reformed view point. Why did God have to reconcile those that he chose in advance? If those that were predestined from before the foundation of the world belong to God then there would be no need to be reconciled back to Him. So why the need of having to be reconciled?

Greetings TrustingFollower,

Because every man is born of Adam, and as such with a nature in bondage to Satan, sin and death. From this bondage we must be redeemed if we are to be reconciled to God. We are not born saved because we are chosen, we are born for salvation because we have been chosen for eternal life.

Many Blessings,
RW

daughter
Dec 19th 2008, 09:37 PM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes
I agree. He's God, He knows everything.

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?
See above.

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lol
I like that! Again, I agree... it's not like the clay can turn around and fight the potter.

So, how do you guys reconcile this information:

God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell
Fortunately, I don't have to reconcile it. I believe that God creates everyone with free will, and I also believe that He's completely in control. We're living in a tight little set of dimensions called Time and Space... God is outside of that. We're like creatures living in a two dimensional universe trying to envisage a cube, with only a square to work with. We can't possibly understand God. His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are far above our thoughts.

Right now we see only dimly... one day we'll see face to face. And on that day we'll see how the tensions and seeming contradictions are resolved.

At this time, it doesn't matter. God is God, He loves us, He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to eternal life. Yet He knows that the way is narrow that leads to eternal life, and only few find it.

We can simply accept that God knows more about it than we do, and whatever label we choose for our own limited understanding, God cannot be labelled.

this is why i believe in double predestination
This is why I don't worry too much about who was right... The problem's too complex for me, and I trust the Lord of all the earth to do right.

BCF
Dec 19th 2008, 09:44 PM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes


Why do you say yes?

If that were the case.....what was the purpose of Jesus going through all that pain and torture for us then?


2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?


Sure he does.....God is the creator of the person. But the destiny that God has planned out for us, is not always the destiny that we choose to take.

For example: I have a destiny all planned out for my son who is now 8 years old. I had this destiny planned out for my son ever since he was born. The destiny that I planned out for my son is that he would grow up and become a Preacher of God's Word that would bring many to Christ in the days ahead. That is the predestined destination that I have planned for the life of my son.

Now.....will my son become this Preacher that I had predestined him to be? I don't know. That would be up to my son.

The same goes for us with God. God predestines all of us to come to Christ, and be one of His Sheep. Whether or not we do is not up to God. That my friend is up to only us.

God Bless,

Dave

Amos_with_goats
Dec 19th 2008, 09:44 PM
FWIW,

Here is a link (http://latter-rain.com/theology/armen.htm)I had saved that someone had posted from an earlier discussion. I do not endorse the site it is posted on, or do I know enough about the author to endorse him either. (how is that for a disclaimer?) :rofl:

Here is a snippet by way of an introduction Arminianism by Jay Atkinson (http://latter-rain.com/theology/armen.htm); (http://latter-rain.com/theology/armen.htm)


Each one of us should accept both pre-destination and free will because they are both taught in the Bible. Anyone who divides on the issue because they accept either one and not the other has chosen foolishness. Jesus would rather have us unite than divide but many schismatics in the church have taken sides one against the other.

RabbiKnife
Dec 19th 2008, 10:08 PM
Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in predestination and election and free will.

They just disagree on what that means.

TrustingFollower
Dec 19th 2008, 10:11 PM
Greetings TrustingFollower,

Because every man is born of Adam, and as such with a nature in bondage to Satan, sin and death. From this bondage we must be redeemed if we are to be reconciled to God. We are not born saved because we are chosen, we are born for salvation because we have been chosen for eternal life.

Many Blessings,
RW
This still does not answer the question fully. If God already owns those that were pre chosen then they are not in bondage to sin because they ultimately never leave God's possession. No one not even God reconciles back to themselves what is already theirs. To reconcile something back means that it is lost or gone from being ones possession.

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 10:47 PM
Why do you say yes?

If that were the case.....what was the purpose of Jesus going through all that pain and torture for us then?



Sure he does.....God is the creator of the person. But the destiny that God has planned out for us, is not always the destiny that we choose to take.

For example: I have a destiny all planned out for my son who is now 8 years old. I had this destiny planned out for my son ever since he was born. The destiny that I planned out for my son is that he would grow up and become a Preacher of God's Word that would bring many to Christ in the days ahead. That is the predestined destination that I have planned for the life of my son.

Now.....will my son become this Preacher that I had predestined him to be? I don't know. That would be up to my son.

The same goes for us with God. God predestines all of us to come to Christ, and be one of His Sheep. Whether or not we do is not up to God. That my friend is up to only us.

God Bless,

Dave

then why does Jesus say that which is born of Spirit is Spirit, not according to the will of man?

Why does James 1:18 say OF HIS OWN WILL HE BROUGHT US FORTH

why does ephesians say we were dead, but GOD MADE US ALIVE, we are not saved because of ourselves, we have nothing to boast about, because it is God who is responsible for making us alive?

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 11:02 PM
This still does not answer the question fully. If God already owns those that were pre chosen then they are not in bondage to sin because they ultimately never leave God's possession. No one not even God reconciles back to themselves what is already theirs. To reconcile something back means that it is lost or gone from being ones possession.


God owns them in the sense of eternity.
however in human time, we are born apart from God, and in some time during human time, God calls us and gives us a new heart

Outside of time, because God is eternal, he knows that in the end we will be saved. In that sense God owns us, refferring to the uture and eternal state in which we will be

does that make sense?

also, we must make a distinction between free will and choice

the bible teaches choice and man's will

it does not teach "free will"

free will means we do whatever we want

no one here can do whatever you want. You can't grow a third arm just cuz you want to

we have a will, but it is bound to our physical limitations and spiritual limitations

calvinists believe at birth we are spiritually seperated from God who is life, and thus spirtually dead

we have a will, but it is limited.

spiritually dead people don't get up and say i want to be saved!

lazurus was not just asleep when Jesus called him
he was complelty dead.
But then Jesus called him, and through a miracle he heard and was given life

in the same way we are spirtually dead. then one day we hear God calling us through the message of the gospel, and through a miracle, our spiritually dead ears are opened and we are given life

do you think the bible says the following just for fun?:
no one seeks God
no one does good
no not one

is the bible lying? did paul just throw that in?

if no one does good,
we must say that if good is done,
it is not because of man ultimately,
because no one does good
so God must be involved

Jesus was the only man who did not sin and did good
but God was involved in that Jesus was both fully God and fully man

tt1106
Dec 19th 2008, 11:08 PM
I look at it like this. Yes, I believe in pre-destination, in that God knows who will accept the offer and stay true, thereby entering Heaven in the end.
I also believe that although we have free will, God ultimately knows what we will choose and therefore knows whether we will end up in Heaven or Hell.
I also believe that because he knows and we do not, we should try really hard to follow Jesus' teaching.
In the end, predestination means little to me other than an I told you so.

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 11:14 PM
Why do you say yes?

If that were the case.....what was the purpose of Jesus going through all that pain and torture for us then?



Sure he does.....God is the creator of the person. But the destiny that God has planned out for us, is not always the destiny that we choose to take.

For example: I have a destiny all planned out for my son who is now 8 years old. I had this destiny planned out for my son ever since he was born. The destiny that I planned out for my son is that he would grow up and become a Preacher of God's Word that would bring many to Christ in the days ahead. That is the predestined destination that I have planned for the life of my son.

Now.....will my son become this Preacher that I had predestined him to be? I don't know. That would be up to my son.

The same goes for us with God. God predestines all of us to come to Christ, and be one of His Sheep. Whether or not we do is not up to God. That my friend is up to only us.

God Bless,

Dave

also, why would you say that God does not know what the end of a person is before the beginning?

Are parts of the future vague to the almighty, eternal, out of time omniscient God? does he say, man there are some grey areas ahead, can't wait to see how they turn out?

God knows everything. Even time is attached to him. that's why he refers to Himself as "I AM" he just exists. he doesn't learn and grow in knowledge about the future. He is complete and knows the begginning from the end. not only that, HE IS the begginiing and the End.

so if God knows all, it makes sense that whetver happens in this world was pre-ordained and predestined

would you put your trust in a god to lead you that does not know the future?

BCF
Dec 19th 2008, 11:17 PM
then why does Jesus say that which is born of Spirit is Spirit, not according to the will of man?


First off...when Jesus said that, I believe that He was referring to being Born Again. Also I might add that when Jesus did say that, He did not say according to man. Instead He said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit". (John 3:6) Meaning....to put it simple. We cannot be of God if we are living after the Flesh. We can only be after God if we are living after the Spirit. Why? Simply b/c God is a Spirit, and God's Spirit will not strive with man.


Why does James 1:18 say OF HIS OWN WILL HE BROUGHT US FORTH


What James says is correct. But not everybody is of God's own. Only those who have been Born of the Spirit and walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh, are God's own.


why does ephesians say we were dead, but GOD MADE US ALIVE, we are not saved because of ourselves, we have nothing to boast about, because it is God who is responsible for making us alive?

Because whn we are born into this world... we are dead.....Spiritually. But we are not dead Physically. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree....they were both Spiritually and Physically alive. How do I know that? Because the scripture tells us that they walk with God in the cool of the night.

Now.....when satan came and told Eve that she would not die if she ate from the tree....what kind of death do you think Eve was thinking about?

It was a Physically death. But the kind of death that satan knew that God was talking about was a Spiritual death. This is how satan tricked Adam and Eve in the Garden....and he is still doing the same today.

Now I ask you.....did Adam and Eve die when they ate from the tree?

The answer to that is yes. Not Physically did they die....but Spiritually they did die. And that is just what satan wants all of us to do.....die Spiritually. Because then we can't reach God......Because God is a Spirit.

God Bless

Dave

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 11:26 PM
Adam and Eve died physically AND spiritually

Adam lived to be 900+ years

if Adam had not sinned he would still be physically alive today

Adam and Eve did not die physically immediatley, but they did physically die eventually.

Their physical death was an outward effect of their spiritual death

the spiritual death was immediate, the physical death followed after

as christians, we immediatley recieve spiritual life, but that life changes our outward conduct progressively. As we walk with christ our spiritual life causes us to become more and more like Him everyday.

Yukerboy
Dec 19th 2008, 11:42 PM
First off...when Jesus said that, I believe that He was referring to being Born Again. Also I might add that when Jesus did say that, He did not say according to man. Instead He said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit". (John 3:6) Meaning....to put it simple. We cannot be of God if we are living after the Flesh. We can only be after God if we are living after the Spirit. Why? Simply b/c God is a Spirit, and God's Spirit will not strive with man.

Let me take a stab at this. Flesh is born of flesh and Spirit is born of Spirit. It is not the flesh that is born again, it is the spirit. The flesh has sin abiding in it, yet God can make your Spirit washed and sanctified.


What James says is correct. But not everybody is of God's own. Only those who have been Born of the Spirit and walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh, are God's own.

Kinda true, but no man can come to Christ unless the Father drags him and no one can know God except those Jesus chooses to reveal God to. God's own did not become God's own by their own choosing.



Because whn we are born into this world... we are dead.....Spiritually. But we are not dead Physically. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree....they were both Spiritually and Physically alive. How do I know that? Because the scripture tells us that they walk with God in the cool of the night.

Now.....when satan came and told Eve that she would not die if she ate from the tree....what kind of death do you think Eve was thinking about?

It was a Physically death. But the kind of death that satan knew that God was talking about was a Spiritual death. This is how satan tricked Adam and Eve in the Garden....and he is still doing the same today.

Now I ask you.....did Adam and Eve die when they ate from the tree?

The answer to that is yes. Not Physically did they die....but Spiritually they did die. And that is just what satan wants all of us to do.....die Spiritually. Because then we can't reach God......Because God is a Spirit.

God Bless

Dave



Absolutely correct.

BCF
Dec 19th 2008, 11:42 PM
Adam and Eve died physically AND spiritually

Of coarse they died physically at some point and time....I never said the they didn't.

But they Spiritually died after they ate from the tree, and that's what I was talking about.


Adam lived to be 900+ years


No problem here.


if Adam had not sinned he would still be physically alive today

Maybe....but their would also be no sin in the world either.


Adam and Eve did not die physically immediatley, but they did physically die eventually.

Of coarse.


Their physical death was an outward effect of their spiritual death

Where do you find scripture to back this up?


the spiritual death was immediate, the physical death followed after

I agree with this also.


as christians, we immediatley recieve spiritual life, but that life changes our outward conduct progressively. As we walk with christ our spiritual life causes us to become more and more like Him everyday.

So what you are telling me here is hat a new born baby is already Spiritually Alive.

If that is true.... why did Jesus tell us to be born again Spiritually in John 3:5-8?

TrustingFollower
Dec 19th 2008, 11:46 PM
God owns them in the sense of eternity.
however in human time, we are born apart from God, and in some time during human time, God calls us and gives us a new heart
If you are being called would it not be the same calling that is sent out to every single person God made?


Outside of time, because God is eternal, he knows that in the end we will be saved. In that sense God owns us, refferring to the uture and eternal state in which we will be

does that make sense?
I agree with this statement. This life we live now is but a vapor in the wind. We are intended to be the spiritual being in God's likeness.


also, we must make a distinction between free will and choice

the bible teaches choice and man's will

it does not teach "free will"

free will means we do whatever we want

no one here can do whatever you want. You can't grow a third arm just cuz you want to

we have a will, but it is bound to our physical limitations and spiritual limitations
Can't grow another are as many times as I have tried. I do see the bible calling out to every single person to make the choice whether to believe in Jesus or not and that determines ones eternity.


calvinists believe at birth we are spiritually seperated from God who is life, and thus spirtually dead

we have a will, but it is limited.

spiritually dead people don't get up and say i want to be saved!
Sure they do, when the Holy Spirit speaks to that person the same way he did with you and I then the person chooses to believe in Jesus. That can be in the morning, noon or night. The Holy Spirit is always working on behalf of Jesus and doing the will of God.


lazurus was not just asleep when Jesus called him
he was complelty dead.
But then Jesus called him, and through a miracle he heard and was given life

in the same way we are spirtually dead. then one day we hear God calling us through the message of the gospel, and through a miracle, our spiritually dead ears are opened and we are given life
Of course Lazarus was dead. This entire demonstration was to show Jesus even has power over death. You and I even have that same power avaiable to us through true prayer and faith. Look at how the apostles raised people from the dead.


do you think the bible says the following just for fun?:
no one seeks God
no one does good
no not one

is the bible lying? did paul just throw that in?

if no one does good,
we must say that if good is done,
it is not because of man ultimately,
because no one does good
so God must be involved
What it the job of the Holy Spirit if not to draw people to God. That is what Paul is conveying with these references. Plus neither you or I have any righteousness of our own and that shows us the need for a savior.


Jesus was the only man who did not sin and did good
but God was involved in that Jesus was both fully God and fully man
No Jesus did not sin and he fulfilled the entire law. That is why we can be reconciled to God through Jesus. God predestined all mankind to be reconciled through Jesus. Only those whom chose to believe in Jesus as their Lord and savior get the reward of eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. Any other interpretation makes Jesus a lair and we know that is not the truth.

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 11:51 PM
when we become christians we are spirtiually alive

that is what i am trying to say.

to be a christian is to be spiritually alive.

a spirtually dead person cannot in and of themselves make themselves spiritually alive

before we are born again christians we are spirtually dead

that is the point im trying to make

christians are not spirtually alive at birth, i never claimed that or at least did not mean to if thats how it seemed

all people are born spirtually dead under adam

then God makes some of those spirtually dead people spirtually alive

i was not made spirtually alive until i turned 21. prior to that i was not a christian, i was spirtually dead

however in the eternal eyes of god who knows all things, he always knew i was his and would be his

however i did not know that until he called me

is that cool?

BCF
Dec 19th 2008, 11:51 PM
Hi Yukerboy, nice to talk to you.



Let me take a stab at this. Flesh is born of flesh and Spirit is born of Spirit. It is not the flesh that is born again, it is the spirit. The flesh has sin abiding in it, yet God can make your Spirit washed and sanctified.


That would be Correct.


Kinda true, but no man can come to Christ unless the Father drags him and no one can know God except those Jesus chooses to reveal God to. God's own did not become God's own by their own choosing.


God's own can only become God's own through the Holy Spirit. The only way the Holy Spirit can reach any of us is if we choose to let him do so. We can choose to turn away from God and his Spirit. Judas did......why can't we.

BCF
Dec 19th 2008, 11:58 PM
when we become christians we are spirtiually alive

that is what i am trying to say.

to be a christian is to be spiritually alive.

a spirtually dead person cannot in and of themselves make themselves spiritually alive

before we are born again christians we are spirtually dead

that is the point im trying to make

christians are not spirtually alive at birth, i never claimed that or at least did not mean to if thats how it seemed

all people are born spirtually dead under adam

then God makes some of those spirtually dead people spirtually alive

i was not made spirtually alive until i turned 21. prior to that i was not a christian, i was spirtually dead

however in the eternal eyes of god who knows all things, he always knew i was his and would be his

however i did not know that until he called me

is that cool?

Sure.....God predestined you to be one of His from Birth, as He does all of us, and wants you figured that out, you became Spiritually Alive and chose to follow Him.

Cool with me.

divaD
Dec 20th 2008, 02:34 AM
God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell


How do you come to the conclusion that God still creates people? I thought the Bible states that God rested from all of His creative works on the 7th day?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, people create people. It's called procreation. How is God responsible for that? What about all of the abortions, etc? Why would God create a human, only to have it aborted before it's born? This is not God's doings. This is evil man's doings.

IMO, you are way off in your conclusions. God is not the blame for all that's gone wrong. We are. Satan and his ilk are. But certainly not God.

thepenitent
Dec 20th 2008, 02:39 AM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lol


So, how do you guys reconcile this information:

God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell

this is why i believe in double predestination

opinions? scriptures?

I don't believe you can separate predestination from double predestination. They are opposite sides of the same coin. Whether affirmatively or passively if God sends/lets some go to hell then it was predestined under the traditional doctrines of predestination. .

SeattleSun
Dec 20th 2008, 03:05 AM
I'm curious ... why would anyone feel the need to put God in a box? Predestination is completely Scriptural, although at times, in my finite mind, its "duck, duck, damn".

I guess I just don't understand adding more "doctrine" into well established Pauline doctrine. A doctrine that is God-breathed. I could put up a lot of Scripture, but y'all know it. :)

Isn't predestination enough of a mystery? But, IMO and FWIW, He knows exactly who will call the Son Lord and who will suffer His righteous wrath. That, IMO, doesn't need to be doubled in any way, shape or form.

God bless!

thepenitent
Dec 20th 2008, 04:03 AM
I'm curious ... why would anyone feel the need to put God in a box? Predestination is completely Scriptural, although at times, in my finite mind, its "duck, duck, damn".

I guess I just don't understand adding more "doctrine" into well established Pauline doctrine. A doctrine that is God-breathed. I could put up a lot of Scripture, but y'all know it. :)

Isn't predestination enough of a mystery? But, IMO and FWIW, He knows exactly who will call the Son Lord and who will suffer His righteous wrath. That, IMO, doesn't need to be doubled in any way, shape or form.

God bless!

I think most instances of "adding more doctrine" arise out of attempts to deal with objections to the basic doctrines of predestination. I also agree with it but I don't press it because I appreciate the points armenians bring up. They are sincere in their beliefs I just don't agree so let's go on to something else. It shouldn't be a dealbreaker or destroy a friendship. Whitefield finally convinced Wesley of that.

Yukerboy
Dec 20th 2008, 04:50 AM
Hi Yukerboy, nice to talk to you.




That would be Correct.



God's own can only become God's own through the Holy Spirit. The only way the Holy Spirit can reach any of us is if we choose to let him do so. We can choose to turn away from God and his Spirit. Judas did......why can't we.

God's own become God's own through the Holy Spirit, we agree.

However, it is not of man's works or will, but on God's grace alone. We have no choice in coming to Christ, nor do we have any choice in NOT coming to Christ.

Even Judas, who "turned away" was the man doomed for destruction. He never belonged to Christ, for he did not endure. 1 John 2 speaks of those who go from us never belonged to us. It doesn't say they once belonged to us and then turned away, but that they were never of us.

drew
Dec 20th 2008, 03:34 PM
so if God knows all, it makes sense that whetver happens in this world was pre-ordained and predestined
I believe that it has been demonstrated quite rigorously that foreknowledge does not necessitate fore-ordainment. It can be shown that even if God foreknows everything, man could still act freely. The arguments for this are somewhat technical but we can get into them if we want to.

reformedct
Dec 20th 2008, 04:01 PM
How do you come to the conclusion that God still creates people? I thought the Bible states that God rested from all of His creative works on the 7th day?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, people create people. It's called procreation. How is God responsible for that? What about all of the abortions, etc? Why would God create a human, only to have it aborted before it's born? This is not God's doings. This is evil man's doings.

IMO, you are way off in your conclusions. God is not the blame for all that's gone wrong. We are. Satan and his ilk are. But certainly not God.

Psalms 139:13-16

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my
mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully
made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not
hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven
together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of
them came to be

God is still the one who "opens the womb" and children are a "gift from God"

Do you really think God plays no role in the creation of human beings? we just create ourselves apart from His hand being involved in the process? David aknowledges the FACT that it was God who made Him. God makes every human being. Yes we procreate but God sovereignly shapes and molds that person Himself.

God is not to blame in the sense that He has not sinned. We have sinned not God. But God is the one who chooses how much sin he will allow until the return of His Son. No one can sin more than God allows.

Just as God allowed Cain to kill Abel, he also allows some people to kill their babies. This is not because God doesn't care, but that he is patient, willing that all men would come to repentance. Just think about all the sin you committed before knowing God. He did not strike you down. He was patient. God is being patient right now but in the end His righteous judgement will be revealed and every man will give an account of everything they have done and they will recieve just punishment

drew
Dec 20th 2008, 04:08 PM
Let me take a stab at this. Flesh is born of flesh and Spirit is born of Spirit. It is not the flesh that is born again, it is the spirit. The flesh has sin abiding in it, yet God can make your Spirit washed and sanctified.
I believe that you may be looking at Paul through Platonic glasses. We in the west have largely adopted a dualistic conceptualization of the world where we split things up into the "material" and the "immaterial". This really was never part of Hebrew thinking. For Paul, it is clear that when he makes the "flesh-spirit" distinction, he is not making a "material vs immaterial distinction, he is instead making a "old nature vs new nature" distinction.

We know from 1 Cor 15 that when Paul refers to a "spiritual body", he is referring to real "physical" body. So he cannot be thinknig that "spirit" is to be contrasted with "physical". Instead Paul, in keeping with the Hebrew mindset, is thinking the whole person undergoing a transition from the fallen "flesh" state to the renewed "spirit" state. Paul does not think in "material" vs "immaterial" terms - that is a distinctly Greek idea that we (incorrectly) super-impose on Paul.

Although Paul sometimes uses "sarx" to refer to the "merely physical", he more commonly uses it in a manner that does not even draw a "physical - immaterial" distinction.

Example 1: Romans 8:13

13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live

Paul cannot be using the word "flesh" here to refer to the physicality of the human person. If he were, he would be suggesting "living physically" leads to death. And since Christians have to live "physically" (obviously), and since presumably continuing to live physically does not mean we do not ultimately live eternally, Paul cannot intend us to understand "flesh" here as a reference to the domain of the physical. Clearly, Paul believes that we can live "physically" (indeed what other choice is there) and also live by the Spirt. Therefore, he cannot mean "flesh" to denote physicality since he plays it off as the alternative to living by the Spirit.

Example 2: Romans 7:18

18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

Considering what Paul immediately goes on to say (following) he cannot be referring to mere physicality in verse 18:

19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (AJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28112AJ))I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Clearly, Paul is using the word "flesh" to refer to the whole person here. In verse 18, he says nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh - a rather clear assertion that "flesh" refers to more than just Paul's physicality.

But verses 19 and 20 make it even more clear. Paul's is talking about his entire person - he is saying that "both spirit and body" practice evil. If Paul, in verse 18, is saying that only his physicality is tainted, then the reader will be left wondering why his "spirit" cannot overcome this purely physical drive to sin. No - the entire person is at issue here.

At the risk appealing to authority, I believe that scholars are fairly unanimous on this issue - Paul does not use the word "sarx" simply to refer to "physicality", he more typically uses the word "soma" for that.

Paul even uses "sarx" to refer to the nation of Israel in some places (like Galatians 5).

drew
Dec 20th 2008, 04:24 PM
It is often claimed that the Scriptures never assert the reality of free will (for people). This question might not be entirely fair if the writers of scripture were coming from a worldview where "human freedom" was such a widely accepted and deeply ingrained concept that it simply need not be stated explicitly. Instead, the concept gets bundled into other concepts, concepts like "choose", "select", "decide", etc.

Anyone familiar with western culture will know that there is an implication of free will when we use these words in day to day life. Evidence for this includes the fact that someone would be considered whacky if they suggested that an apple "chose" or "decided" to fall from the tree. And yet we consider it perfectly all right to say that a person "chose" to go to a baseball game or "decided" to read a book.

The reason for this discrepancy is, of course, the fact that modern westerners basically all believe in the reality of free will, and that people have it and apples do not. Suppose that someone wrote a vast sweeping story with all sorts of human choices and decisions being described, with nary a clear statement that these choices and decisions were free. Would it be legitimate to claim the author did not believe in the reality of free will? Of course not. The author’s belief is clearly evidenced by his/her word selection – phrases like “he chose” and “she decided” have free will implicitly bundled into them.

So the absence of clear scriptural assertions about man having free will is not evidence that the writers did not believe men have some degree of free will.

reformedct
Dec 20th 2008, 07:53 PM
It is often claimed that the Scriptures never assert the reality of free will (for people). This question might not be entirely fair if the writers of scripture were coming from a worldview where "human freedom" was such a widely accepted and deeply ingrained concept that it simply need not be stated explicitly. Instead, the concept gets bundled into other concepts, concepts like "choose", "select", "decide", etc.

Anyone familiar with western culture will know that there is an implication of free will when we use these words in day to day life. Evidence for this includes the fact that someone would be considered whacky if they suggested that an apple "chose" or "decided" to fall from the tree. And yet we consider it perfectly all right to say that a person "chose" to go to a baseball game or "decided" to read a book.

The reason for this discrepancy is, of course, the fact that modern westerners basically all believe in the reality of free will, and that people have it and apples do not. Suppose that someone wrote a vast sweeping story with all sorts of human choices and decisions being described, with nary a clear statement that these choices and decisions were free. Would it be legitimate to claim the author did not believe in the reality of free will? Of course not. The author’s belief is clearly evidenced by his/her word selection – phrases like “he chose” and “she decided” have free will implicitly bundled into them.

So the absence of clear scriptural assertions about man having free will is not evidence that the writers did not believe men have some degree of free will.


i see what your getting at however it is my peronal conviction that since the bible repeatedly refers to mans will as in bondage to sin this is my position that man has limited or "bound" will

humans have wills and they choose many things i believe that to be true

however i do not believe a slave to sin can in and of themselves choose freedom, but that they must have a savior set them free first, and then they will be freed


he who the son sets free is free indeed

that being said lets not forget these are secondary issues. We all agree on the core facts, salvation is in no other but the crucified and risen Jesus Christ by faith thru grace! we must all repent and believe

calvinists just believe those who actually respond to that call have been beneficiaries of God working in them and making them alive

i find it amazing how much animosity there can be between calvinsts and those who are more arminian in doctrine. The doctrines of calvinism are based and rooted in scripture. They are not some far off whacky beliefs but are constructed by the scriptures themselves

for example: we were dead in our tresspasses, as the rest of mankind

so calvinsts say, ok, before God made us alive, we were dead because of sins

and if a person is dead they cant choose to make themselves alive

so god is responsible for making us alive, as the scriptures say. Glory to God!

whats so hard to believe about that?

the reason i am convicted that the reformed doctrine is correct is because in it God gets 100% Glory and man gets none

i feel that in other doctrines man gets some credit for choosing to do good


i agree that your reasoning about the concept of free will existing but what i am saying is that when i read the Word of God it seems that mans will is indeed not free but in bondage to sin and folly. is that really so much of a stretch?

he is the author and finisher of our faith

authors are the ones responsible for the work

Jesus wrote our faith into existence and he will finish it imho it is very simple

i think you said something earlier about resisting the Spirit. I beleive this refers to everyone who does not respond in saving faith in Christ. and thus outrage the Spirit of grace, counting the blood of the covenant as a common thing

How many people go to church and hear about God and the Spirit and Jesus and salvation but theres just no commitment? or some try to earn their way to heaven? i think that is what is meant by outraging or resisting the spirit. Just like stephen told the cold hearted jews who stoned him, You always RESIST the spirit, meaning whenever you hear truth you reject it. this is true, because one who is bound to sin cannot choose to recieve the spirit.

but if they are set free by the son they will be free indeed.

BCF
Dec 20th 2008, 09:06 PM
God's own become God's own through the Holy Spirit, we agree.

Agreed


However, it is not of man's works or will, but on God's grace alone.

I also agree


We have no choice in coming to Christ, nor do we have any choice in NOT coming to Christ.

Here I must disagree with you. I do because of scripture from the beginning. In Genesis 2:7 the writer Moses writes this from the inspiration of God:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

In order for man to have a living anything...it needs to have a brain. Now....from what I read from that scripture, Adam had a living brain when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. That scripture does not tell me that God breathed into the nostrils the breath of life; and man became a puppet on a string for God to do what ever God instructs it to do. No. I see that it says that God breathed into the nostrils the breath of LIFE; and man became a LIVING SOUL. So for you to say that man does not have a choice to come to God, is to say that we do not have a living brain. Jesus tells us in John 3:16-18 this:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever BELIEVETH in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that BELIEVETH on Him is not condemned; but he that BELIEVETH NOT is condemned already, because HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD."

Now I ask you....if what you say is true.....why would Jesus say " but he that BELIEVETH NOT is condemned already, because HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD."??????

In order for us as humans to believe on anything we need to have a living brain to tell us to do so. We can't do it without a brain. Also if we never had a choice to be one of God's as you said.....Jesus had no reason to say what he did in those verses simply b/c nobody would ever condemn Him. If they did....God would be condemning himself b/c He had complete control over our minds and thoughts and heart. Which is all controlled by the brain.
It is for this Scriptural reason and others that I can't agree with what you are trying to say.


Even Judas, who "turned away" was the man doomed for destruction. He never belonged to Christ, for he did not endure.

Judas wasn't doomed for destruction any more then Peter was. The only difference between the two is that Peter repented for what he did, and Judas killed himself.
You say that Judas never belonged to Christ in the first place. Well if he never belonged to Christ....how comes Jesus trusted him with all of His money? Also.....if Judas never belonged to Christ....how comes Jesus washed his feet with the rest of the disciples? Judas belonged to Christ just as much as the rest did. If you are going to say that Judas did not belong to Christ b/c he betrayed Jesus....well then you must say that Peter did not belong to Christ either b/c Peter denied Jesus three times, and Jesus told Peter that he would do so. Just like Jesus told Judas that he would betray him. There is no difference between the two. Like I said the only difference between what Judas did and what Peter did is that, Peter repented for his sin and Judas did not. That is it. As far as being one of Gods.....they both were.....well at least up until Judas decieded not to repent of his sin....then he wasn't......but that's another topic.

Anyway, without a brain we cannot accept the word of God into our Hearts in order for God to reach us. Yes....there is nothing that we do on a physical sense....but there is on a mental. That is why God gave us a brain....and man don't know how it works.....and never will.

God Bless

Dave

Sirus
Dec 20th 2008, 10:28 PM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lolThe title of the thread has predestination in it and number 2 has destiny in it while number 1 and 2 refers to election, not predestination. Do you want to discuss election or predestination? They are not the same. Predestination in the predetermined inheritence the elect would receive and walk in. It is because of the purpose of God and will of God according to election that He predestined an inheritance for us to receive and walk in. There is a word for elect and another for predestine. They are different and are used different. The Holy Ghost is not a sloppy writer.


Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory

thepenitent
Dec 21st 2008, 12:14 AM
I've always believed John Chaptaer has at least 3 references to predestination.

Jn 6:29 - “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Jn 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Jn 6:65 "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


Paul also says we have no reason to boast - it comes 100% as grace and not our own effort. If a conscious free choice decision was required then those who made the effort to choose right WOULD have a reason to boast. Even if man's part the effort is only 1%, that 1% becomes the deciding factor. The focus becomes "which way will man choose - faith or not?". Thus the person who "chooses" faith would have a reason to boast over the one who didn't. Making the right choice then becomes a form of "works". Only if God decides the whole thing is it total grace with no reason to boast. I believe man has total fee will do to what he wants to do but not what he ought to do.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 12:27 AM
The problem I see with that is scripture never once calls faith a work. If I am wrong show me the scripture I have missed.

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 03:00 AM
The problem I see with that is scripture never once calls faith a work. If I am wrong show me the scripture I have missed.

I can agree also. I do not know of any place in scripture where it calls Faith work. Although I do believe that it does take a lot of work to keep our Faith. Work that we choose to do through the help of the Holy Spirit.

So in a sense I guess we could say that it is work that we do through the Holy Spirit, which helps us keep our Faith in todays world. But then again.....that is something that we need to choose to do. It's not something that just happens b/c we are Christians like some may think.

Butch5
Dec 21st 2008, 03:05 AM
Greetings TrustingFollower,

Because every man is born of Adam, and as such with a nature in bondage to Satan, sin and death. From this bondage we must be redeemed if we are to be reconciled to God. We are not born saved because we are chosen, we are born for salvation because we have been chosen for eternal life.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger,

Please show me Scripture that says we have a nature in bondage to Satan, sin, and death. I agree we are born into this state, but please show me where Scripture says this is our nature.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 03:27 AM
:o You agree we are born into this state but need scripture? Why then do you agree? I just find it strange. Just asking. Because I don't agree with a doctrine that I have not first seen scripture for.

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 03:43 AM
:o You agree we are born into this state but need scripture? Why then do you agree? I just find it strange. Just asking. Because I don't agree with a doctrine that I have not first seen scripture for.

No....I agreed with what you said. That their is no place that I can find in scripture where it says that Faith is a work. That is what I agreed with. What you where saying.

I do not agree that we are born into a state of anything but sin. B/c that is what scripture tells me. I don't believe in any doctrine....I believe only in the scripture. If the scripture says it.....it's final. If you want to call that a doctrine.....well then that would be my doctrine....what the scripture says. Not what man makes scripture say or sound like. Just what it says.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 03:50 AM
I was talking to Butch5 who said "I agree we are born into this state, but please show me where Scripture says this is our nature."

But since scripture tells you that you are born in sin, where?

reformedct
Dec 21st 2008, 03:53 AM
Roger,

Please show me Scripture that says we have a nature in bondage to Satan, sin, and death. I agree we are born into this state, but please show me where Scripture says this is our nature.


Ephesians 2: "we were by nature children of wrath", "dead in our tresspasses, following the prince of the power of the air(satan), the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience"

"the whole world is under the sway of the evil one" 1 john 5:19

anyone who has not been bought by Jesus is under the sway of the evil one.

This why in the end times many will be decieved by the beast. The spirit of Satan himself is at work in them

David said we were formed in iniquity

romans 6:

17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

every human being is a slave. either a slave to death through Adam, or a slave to righteousness through CHrist


romans 5:


15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.


did you catch the last part? many died through one man's tresspasses

not only are we under the law of sin and death because we sin, but because of one man's tresspass many died. just as through Jesus many live

We are sinners by nature because we have inherited our father Adam's nature. its really quite simple

i think people don't like to believe that apart from God they are nothing but scumballs. that goes for me as well. I don't like believing that in and of myself is nothing but rebellion and folly. But the scriptures seem to be clear that we are all slaves to either sin or righteousness

it goes against a persons pride and of course "self-esteem"

its very simple: man is bad. God is good. so God saves some bad people even though they don't deserve it. Its all to the glory of God! don't you guys want God to get the glory? are you trying to keep some of the responsibility in your own hand so you can say, I chose God! oh really? you chose Him? not the other way around?

WOuldnt you hate if someone took credit for your work? why do we try to take any credit for the work of God? why are we robbing Him of full praise? we were dead and He made us alive! we were slaves and the Son set us free!:pp i dont know why people try to refute this instead of praising God for what He has done for us. Salvation belongs to the Lord Jonah 2:9

Butch5
Dec 21st 2008, 03:55 AM
Reformedct---i see what your getting at however it is my peronal conviction that since the bible repeatedly refers to mans will as in bondage to sin this is my position that man has limited or "bound" will
humans have wills and they choose many things i believe that to be true
however i do not believe a slave to sin can in and of themselves choose freedom, but that they must have a savior set them free first, and then they will be freed
he who the son sets free is free indeed


Can a slave choose to be free from a taskmaster? Don't many slaves try to escape? Why then could someone enslaved to sin not try to escape?


Reformedct---that being said lets not forget these are secondary issues. We all agree on the core facts, salvation is in no other but the crucified and risen Jesus Christ by faith thru grace! we must all repent and believe
calvinists just believe those who actually respond to that call have been beneficiaries of God working in them and making them alive
i find it amazing how much animosity there can be between calvinsts and those who are more arminian in doctrine. The doctrines of calvinism are based and rooted in scripture. They are not some far off whacky beliefs but are constructed by the scriptures themselves
for example: we were dead in our tresspasses, as the rest of mankind
so calvinsts say, ok, before God made us alive, we were dead because of sins
and if a person is dead they cant choose to make themselves alive
so god is responsible for making us alive, as the scriptures say. Glory to God!
whats so hard to believe about that?


The problem is that Paul uses death as a metaphor, Paul does not mean a person is dead. The Calvinist takes this to mean spiritually dead, however, there is no mention in the Scriptures of spiritual death. By saying we were dead in trespasses and sin Paul is saying we were unable to do anything about our condition. Whether a person wants to or not, they cannot make themselves born again or spiritually alive, that is something that only God can do. That does mean we cannot ask God to quicken us.


Reformedct---the reason i am convicted that the reformed doctrine is correct is because in it God gets 100% Glory and man gets none

Where does Scripture say that man should get no glory? Doesn't Romans 8:29 say that God glorified those He foreknew?


Reformedct---i feel that in other doctrines man gets some credit for choosing to do good

Whether man gets credit or not doesn't matter, because no one could be saved if God doesn't save them.

Jesus calls them who do good, righteous. Is Jesus giving them credit?

Matthew 25:31-46 ( KJV ) 31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Reformedct---i agree that your reasoning about the concept of free will existing but what i am saying is that when i read the Word of God it seems that mans will is indeed not free but in bondage to sin and folly. is that really so much of a stretch?
he is the author and finisher of our faith
authors are the ones responsible for the work
Jesus wrote our faith into existence and he will finish it imho it is very simple



Is that what it means? Or is that Jesus did everything that was necessary to pave the was of salvation. In other words, you are saying that Jesus is the author of your faith (belief) and the finisher of your faith (belief). Have you considered that the writer of Hebrews may not have meant you as an individual? Have you considered this reading, Jesus is the author and finisher of faith. Not your faith (belief), in the sense that He takes your faith in Him and somehow finishes it , But that He is the author and finisher of the faith, the faith of Jesus Christ, which is the message that He brought, the gospel, consider,

Hebrews 12:1-3 ( KJV ) 1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

Notice the word "our" is italicized, it was added by the translators, look how it reads from Young's literal translation,

Hebrews 12:1-3 ( YLT ) 1Therefore, we also having so great a cloud of witnesses set around us, every weight having put off, and the closely besetting sin, through endurance may we run the contest that is set before us, 2looking to the author and perfecter of faith—Jesus, who, over-against the joy set before him—did endure a cross, shame having despised, on the right hand also of the throne of God did sit down; 3for consider again him who endured such gainsaying from the sinners to himself, that ye may not be wearied in your souls—being faint.

The Greek doesn't have the word our.
Consider how Jesus perfected this faith,

Hebrews 12:1-3 ( KJV ) 1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

He endured the cross, the shame, the contradiction of sinners against Himself, this is not speaking of finishing the faith of an individual believer, this is finishing the work that God sent Him to do, which was to bring the gospel. I think from the context it is clear, that the faith is the gospel.




Reformedct---i think you said something earlier about resisting the Spirit. I beleive this refers to everyone who does not respond in saving faith in Christ. and thus outrage the Spirit of grace, counting the blood of the covenant as a common thing
How many people go to church and hear about God and the Spirit and Jesus and salvation but theres just no commitment? or some try to earn their way to heaven? i think that is what is meant by outraging or resisting the spirit. Just like stephen told the cold hearted jews who stoned him, You always RESIST the spirit, meaning whenever you hear truth you reject it. this is true, because one who is bound to sin cannot choose to recieve the spirit.


Can you supply Scripture that states this?

Butch5
Dec 21st 2008, 04:12 AM
Ephesians 2: "we were by nature children of wrath", "dead in our tresspasses, following the prince of the power of the air(satan), the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience"

"the whole world is under the sway of the evil one" 1 john 5:19

anyone who has not been bought by Jesus is under the sway of the evil one.

This why in the end times many will be decieved by the beast. The spirit of Satan himself is at work in them

David said we were formed in iniquity

romans 6:

17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

every human being is a slave. either a slave to death through Adam, or a slave to righteousness through CHrist


romans 5:


15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.


did you catch the last part? many died through one man's tresspasses

not only are we under the law of sin and death because we sin, but because of one man's tresspass many died. just as through Jesus many live

We are sinners by nature because we have inherited our father Adam's nature. its really quite simple

i think people don't like to believe that apart from God they are nothing but scumballs. that goes for me as well. I don't like believing that in and of myself is nothing but rebellion and folly. But the scriptures seem to be clear that we are all slaves to either sin or righteousness

it goes against a persons pride and of course "self-esteem"

its very simple: man is bad. God is good. so God saves some bad people even though they don't deserve it. Its all to the glory of God! don't you guys want God to get the glory? are you trying to keep some of the responsibility in your own hand so you can say, I chose God! oh really? you chose Him? not the other way around?

WOuldnt you hate if someone took credit for your work? why do we try to take any credit for the work of God? why are we robbing Him of full praise? we were dead and He made us alive! we were slaves and the Son set us free!:pp i dont know why people try to refute this instead of praising God for what He has done for us. Salvation belongs to the Lord Jonah 2:9

Man is not bad, man does bad things. Ephesians 2 says we were by nature children of wrath, however, that is not the context that I believe Roger was using it in, since I know what Roger believes. Consider the Greek,

Title : Thayer’s Greek Definitions
G5449
φύσις phusis
Thayer Definition: 1) nature 1a) the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature 1a) as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse 1b) as opposed what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature 1b) birth, physical origin 1c) a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature 1d) the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: the natural strength, ferocity, and intractability of

By nature, I believe Paul is speaking of our being born into a condition of being children of wrath. I don't think, given the definition of the Greek, that Paul means we are born with a nature in us that is incapable of doing good.

The other verse you quoted have nothing to do with our nature they just state that man does evil.

kenrank
Dec 21st 2008, 04:22 AM
Of course the Calvinist answer to that is the reason we practice the 'great commission' is to be obedient to scripture. The problem is that obedience is not really a big Hallmark of the western Church.

The idea of being 'under grace' is accurate in it's scriptural context. The problem is that in the context of the flesh we tend to do what we see as necessary.

While we are to see 'sinners in the hands of....' we see that it really makes no difference.... just as the adversary would have us to do.

Are there scriptures to support both sides of the 'argument'? Of course, the problem is that scripture does not argue against it's self. Only men do that.

Scripture asks us to choose.... Calvinism (or applied hyper Calvinism) says that it does not matter what you choose.

I see the scripture pointing clearly to both pre-destintation AND free will...without contradiction.

We are asked to believe, a choice seemingly evident. So through OUR eyes, we have free will.

Yet, God knows who will and won't choose him...and He knew this from the beginning. So through HIS eyes, it is predestination. Not as much that He created one to live and one to die...for scripture says he would rather none die.....but because he knew from the foundation of the world... we were born into a direction he knew but we didn't.

Peace.
Ken

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 04:26 AM
I was talking to Butch5 who said "I agree we are born into this state, but please show me where Scripture says this is our nature."

But since scripture tells you that you are born in sin, where?

John 3:6, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit."

1st Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."

The only way you can be born of a corruptible seed is to be born of the flesh, and our flesh according to Paul in Romans 7 is sinfull. The only way to be born incorruptible is to be born of the Spirit. Which only happens through a renewing of your mind according to Paul in Romans 12:1-2.

Thus making you Born Again in the Spirit.

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 04:27 AM
I see the scripture pointing clearly to both pre-destintation AND free will...without contradiction.

We are asked to believe, a choice seemingly evident. So through OUR eyes, we have free will.

Yet, God knows who will and won't choose him...and He knew this from the beginning. So through HIS eyes, it is predestination. Not as much that He created one to live and one to die...for scripture says he would rather none die.....but because he knew from the foundation of the world... we were born into a direction he knew but we didn't.

Peace.
Ken

Well then why send His Son to Die for Our Sins?

reformedct
Dec 21st 2008, 04:30 AM
Can a slave choose to be free from a taskmaster? Don't many slaves try to escape? Why then could someone enslaved to sin not try to escape?



The problem is that Paul uses death as a metaphor, Paul does not mean a person is dead. The Calvinist takes this to mean spiritually dead, however, there is no mention in the Scriptures of spiritual death. By saying we were dead in trespasses and sin Paul is saying we were unable to do anything about our condition. Whether a person wants to or not, they cannot make themselves born again or spiritually alive, that is something that only God can do. That does mean we cannot ask God to quicken us.



Where does Scripture say that man should get no glory? Doesn't Romans 8:29 say that God glorified those He foreknew?



Whether man gets credit or not doesn't matter, because no one could be saved if God doesn't save them.

Jesus calls them who do good, righteous. Is Jesus giving them credit?

Matthew 25:31-46 ( KJV ) 31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.




Is that what it means? Or is that Jesus did everything that was necessary to pave the was of salvation. In other words, you are saying that Jesus is the author of your faith (belief) and the finisher of your faith (belief). Have you considered that the writer of Hebrews may not have meant you as an individual? Have you considered this reading, Jesus is the author and finisher of faith. Not your faith (belief), in the sense that He takes your faith in Him and somehow finishes it , But that He is the author and finisher of the faith, the faith of Jesus Christ, which is the message that He brought, the gospel, consider,

Hebrews 12:1-3 ( KJV ) 1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

Notice the word "our" is italicized, it was added by the translators, look how it reads from Young's literal translation,

Hebrews 12:1-3 ( YLT ) 1Therefore, we also having so great a cloud of witnesses set around us, every weight having put off, and the closely besetting sin, through endurance may we run the contest that is set before us, 2looking to the author and perfecter of faith—Jesus, who, over-against the joy set before him—did endure a cross, shame having despised, on the right hand also of the throne of God did sit down; 3for consider again him who endured such gainsaying from the sinners to himself, that ye may not be wearied in your souls—being faint.

The Greek doesn't have the word our.
Consider how Jesus perfected this faith,

Hebrews 12:1-3 ( KJV ) 1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

He endured the cross, the shame, the contradiction of sinners against Himself, this is not speaking of finishing the faith of an individual believer, this is finishing the work that God sent Him to do, which was to bring the gospel. I think from the context it is clear, that the faith is the gospel.





Can you supply Scripture that states this?


can you supply scripture that says paul was metaphorically speaking when he said we were dead in our tresspasses?

and yes god glorifies who he justifies, but God still gets the Glory for the whole sha-bang! He gets the ultimate glory for being merciful enough to glorify sinful man. And i believe glorified in that verse refers to glorification when we recieve glorified bodies, not glory in general


but let me just ask this one question:

you guys are saying that man is shaped in iniquity....

but he is inherently good?

is there scripture that supports that mankind is actually good from birth he just does bad?

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 05:09 AM
can you supply scripture that says paul was metaphorically speaking when he said we were dead in our tresspasses?

and yes god glorifies who he justifies, but God still gets the Glory for the whole sha-bang! He gets the ultimate glory for being merciful enough to glorify sinful man. And i believe glorified in that verse refers to glorification when we recieve glorified bodies, not glory in general


but let me just ask this one question:

you guys are saying that man is shaped in iniquity....

but he is inherently good?

is there scripture that supports that mankind is actually good from birth he just does bad?

No...man is born from an incorruptible seed. Which would mean that man is born of sin.

Paul puts it this way in 2nd Corinthians 15:47-50:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

In other words....Adam was the first....Jesus was the second. Adam from flesh.....Jesus from Spirit. We have the image of both at birth. The image of corruption (Adam) and the image of incorruption (Jesus/Spirit). But we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven with flesh and blood (Adam). We can only enter the kingdom of heaven through Jesus (Spirit). Not by a seed full of corruption (Adam) but through a seed of incorruption (Jesus).

This is why Jesus said in John 3-6, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit."

Marvel not that Jesus said that you must be Born Again.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 06:38 AM
John 3:6, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit."

1st Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."

The only way you can be born of a corruptible seed is to be born of the flesh, and our flesh according to Paul in Romans 7 is sinfull. The only way to be born incorruptible is to be born of the Spirit. Which only happens through a renewing of your mind according to Paul in Romans 12:1-2.

Thus making you Born Again in the Spirit.Those do not say we are born in or with sin.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 07:16 AM
you guys are saying that man is shaped in iniquity....

but he is inherently good?

is there scripture that supports that mankind is actually good from birth he just does bad?You're the one that said "man is shaped in iniquity" without explaining what that means.

Is there scripture that says man is bad when born? There's

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

which speaks of the wicked but you can't say this is all men because

Psa 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

we have a contrast between the wick and righteous.

There's

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

but the context speaks of an adult woman (unclean) who gives birth to a flower

Job 14:1 Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
Job 14:2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.

Job also says

Job 14:16 For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin?

Nothing there about being born with sin.

I have stated what I believe in this thread
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=142791

here's the posts
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1895535&postcount=11

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1895538&postcount=12

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1895540&postcount=13

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1895542&postcount=14

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1895548&postcount=15

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1896019&postcount=19

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1896157&postcount=20

Thaddaeus
Dec 21st 2008, 08:39 AM
2ti 2:10 (http://bibleforums.org/2ti+2:10)Therefore I endure all things for the ELECT's SAKEs, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

if the elect are the ones predestined for the kingdom, why did Paul who was supposely the one who taught us about calvinist doctrine of grace, why did he then think that the ones predetermined in, needed salvation. or could it possibly be that God's elect was simply His coosen people the Jews who also needed to call upon the name of the Lord for their salvation also. and man came up with the doctrine of grace through the calvinist view point. But God gave free will and only by His foreknowledge of those who call upon the name of the Lord, and not Him predetermining and if God is not a respect of persons wouldn't we all either have to be in hell or in heaven, unless he predetewrmined to give us a choice. :hmm: think about it

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 01:47 PM
Those do not say we are born in or with sin.

Yes it does...you just can't see it.

See if you can see what Paul was saying in 2nd Corinthians 15:47-50:


"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

This takes you right back to what I wrote you in the first place...which you claimed had nothing to do with man being born into sin.


John 3:6, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit."

1st Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."

Do you not understand that we are born from a seed of corruption? Our parents are not Holy people so how in the world can they be an incorruptible seed? It can't happen my friend. We need to be Born of the Spirit in order for us to be Born of a incorruptible seed. Otherwise we die in our sins. We are not born into this world with a Spirit that is Alive with God....simple b/c we don't even know who God is yet when we first come into this world. We need to become incorruptible through the Holy Spirit by reading and accepting the Word of God, and the Shed Blood of Our Lord Jesus. We can't do that as a baby......
nobody can......except Jesus Himself. And we are all far from being Jesus.


God Bless

Dave

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 06:31 PM
Do you not understand that we are born from a seed of corruption? Our parents are not Holy people so how in the world can they be an incorruptible seed? It can't happen my friend. We need to be Born of the Spirit in order for us to be Born of a incorruptible seed. Otherwise we die in our sins. We are not born into this world with a Spirit that is Alive with God....simple b/c we don't even know who God is yet when we first come into this world. We need to become incorruptible through the Holy Spirit by reading and accepting the Word of God, and the Shed Blood of Our Lord Jesus. We can't do that as a baby......
nobody can......except Jesus Himself. And we are all far from being Jesus.Who made the seed corruptible? Where does it say they were ever incorruptible? You equate corruption with sin. Why? Adam only had one commandment that if he broke would separate his dying body from the tree of life. That same chapter in 1Cor 15 says the earthy natural corruptible man came first and that it pleased the Lord [it is very good -Gen 1:31].

1Co 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
......
1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
.........
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Again,
1Co 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Joh 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
Joh 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

In Genesis 1: 11, 12, 29 (and throughout Scripture) we see this very same concept of seed yielding and bring forth of itself through the process of death.

God said to Adam 'you shall surely die'. The Hebrew is, dying die, or dying you will die. I'm not making this up. Look it up. Translations say it and Hebrew scholars say it, christians seem to be the only ones that have a problem with it.

Earlier you said "our flesh according to Paul in Romans 7 is sinfull", but my question is at birth not after we have lived according to the natural course of this world. Flesh is dying, decaying, corruptible flesh. The greek is sarx and it is never sinful nature. If the Holy Spirit wanted to say sinful nature there is greek words for sin, full -sinful, and nature, but He chose to use the word sarx. Amazing how that works, eh?

Christiana
Dec 21st 2008, 06:36 PM
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. 9:13

I believe this verse speaks loudly on this topic so this will be all I contribute in this thread.

BTW, great topic. :)

reformedct
Dec 21st 2008, 06:42 PM
No...man is born from an incorruptible seed. Which would mean that man is born of sin.

Paul puts it this way in 2nd Corinthians 15:47-50:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

In other words....Adam was the first....Jesus was the second. Adam from flesh.....Jesus from Spirit. We have the image of both at birth. The image of corruption (Adam) and the image of incorruption (Jesus/Spirit). But we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven with flesh and blood (Adam). We can only enter the kingdom of heaven through Jesus (Spirit). Not by a seed full of corruption (Adam) but through a seed of incorruption (Jesus).

This is why Jesus said in John 3-6, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit."

Marvel not that Jesus said that you must be Born Again.


are you refferring to both Christians and non-Christians? do non-Christians have incorruptable seed? when you say we have both at birth are you talking about spiritual birth or natural. i agree that Christians have the seed of Adam in their flesh but the presence and life providing presence of the Spirit of God. I do not believe non-Christians have this.

proverbs 20:27 says the Spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord

i think scripture supports that the unsaved have a lamp with no light or fire

when we are born again those lamps are lit. it seems this is what is meant when we are dead in our tresspasses

also if what is born of spirit is spirit, is something in existence before it is born? is there any kind of spiritual life before there is birth to spiritual life?

RogerW
Dec 21st 2008, 06:51 PM
Ephesians 2: "we were by nature children of wrath", "dead in our tresspasses, following the prince of the power of the air(satan), the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience"

"the whole world is under the sway of the evil one" 1 john 5:19

anyone who has not been bought by Jesus is under the sway of the evil one.

This why in the end times many will be decieved by the beast. The spirit of Satan himself is at work in them

David said we were formed in iniquity

romans 6:

17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

every human being is a slave. either a slave to death through Adam, or a slave to righteousness through CHrist


romans 5:


15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.


did you catch the last part? many died through one man's tresspasses

not only are we under the law of sin and death because we sin, but because of one man's tresspass many died. just as through Jesus many live

We are sinners by nature because we have inherited our father Adam's nature. its really quite simple

i think people don't like to believe that apart from God they are nothing but scumballs. that goes for me as well. I don't like believing that in and of myself is nothing but rebellion and folly. But the scriptures seem to be clear that we are all slaves to either sin or righteousness

it goes against a persons pride and of course "self-esteem"

its very simple: man is bad. God is good. so God saves some bad people even though they don't deserve it. Its all to the glory of God! don't you guys want God to get the glory? are you trying to keep some of the responsibility in your own hand so you can say, I chose God! oh really? you chose Him? not the other way around?

WOuldnt you hate if someone took credit for your work? why do we try to take any credit for the work of God? why are we robbing Him of full praise? we were dead and He made us alive! we were slaves and the Son set us free!:pp i dont know why people try to refute this instead of praising God for what He has done for us. Salvation belongs to the Lord Jonah 2:9

Thank you reformedct, you answered him exactly as I would have. I find great pleasure in these communities as more and more faithful Christians come to share the doctrines of Sovereign Grace of God alone. It is a pleasure reading your posts, I pray many abundant blessings upon you.

RW

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 07:02 PM
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. 9:13

I believe this verse speaks loudly on this topic so this will be all I contribute in this thread.

BTW, great topic. :)It speak of election not predestination. Concerning election it clearly says the choice God made was according to His foreknowledge because Esau and Jacob had no works and were not even born, but He knew Esau would despise the covenant blessings and birthright selling it for a bowl of soup and He knew Jacob desired and believed the covenant blessing. In no way is it an example of an arbitrary choosing apart from the will and volition of the two men. The 'purpose and will of God' according to election is 'mine elect' Christ coming in the flesh through Israel, which you will find is the context and the beginning of the chapter.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 07:29 PM
Ephesians 2: "we were by nature children of wrath", "dead in our tresspasses, following the prince of the power of the air(satan), the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience"
Great, where's birth?



David said we were formed in iniquity
He also said

Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.
Psa 8:6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

So let me see if I have this right? I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made with a sin nature: it’s marvelous that I have this sin nature and that my soul is dead and knows very well, wrong and nothing right. ???
Are you serious?

Or

Psa 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

These don’t jive too well with
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

We have a contradiction so which way is it? Well, which ones are supported by other scripture? How did the same man that said shapen in iniquity, say fearfully and wonderfully made, protected in the womb, knows what is right, that God visits man and crowned man with glory and honor, and my God from the womb? He wrote so much about desiring God to break the wicked and deliver the righteous but all of a sudden he claims to be born with sin?
Are you serious?

Which ONES (used to make doctrine) are praise and which ONE (never used to make doctrine) is lamenting?
Is there figurative and poetic language in the context?
When it seems there is a contradiction in scripture, it either doesn’t mean what we think it means, or we have wrong theology leaning us in a certain direction causing the wrong interpretation.

Psalm 51 is not a proof text for a sin nature. It just means David was brought into a world (flesh/without God) that ensured he would sin, and sin he did, which is the lamenting context. It says his mother was ‘in sin’ when he was conceived, and she was, just like every other man before the Messiah.
Shapen doesn’t mean to shape something like most English speaking people read it. The word is used many different ways, but below are a few examples of how the Hebrew word (in bold) is used in conjunction with birth.

Isa 45:10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

The word is not applied to inside the womb but outside the womb to a child delivered and born into the world. Did a thing or disease called sin cling to David as he exited the womb and entered the world? Was he protected by God and fearfully and wonderfully made in the womb, then sinful as soon as he was born? Sin is something we do not something to be painted on. David was brought forth in iniquity and that’s what a lot of translations say. Psalm 51 is not an infant created with a sin nature. David is describing the state of his parents (in sin), and the world he was brought into that ensured he himself would sin. No? Then why do the verses both before and after speak of David’s own personal sin and have no mention of imputed sin from another? Why is there no mention of imputed sin from another anywhere in Scripture? Before Christ, we are dead in our sins as David’s parents were ‘in sin’, but it doesn’t say we are born that way. This is not a foreign concept to Christianity that says we are dead in our sin after walking naturally according to the course of this world. It says dead in our sin after living, not born dead in our sin. How can you be born dead in YOUR sin if YOU haven’t sinned?

David is very clear (as is all scripture) that it is his sin, not Adam’s or his fathers sin, he will be judged for even though consequences of Adam and possibly his fathers sin affected him.

Psa 51:2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
Psa 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
...........
Psa 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.



romans 5:


15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.


did you catch the last part? many died through one man's tresspasses
Great! Where's birth?



We are sinners by nature because we have inherited our father Adam's nature. its really quite simple
So Adam was a sinner by nature? Since I know you will say no, when did Adam's nature change?



i think people don't like to believe that apart from God they are nothing but scumballs. that goes for me as well. I don't like believing that in and of myself is nothing but rebellion and folly. But the scriptures seem to be clear that we are all slaves to either sin or righteousness
Great! Where's birth?

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 10:08 PM
This is going to be a lo....ng......week with this thread. But I love it and what a challenge. I give God all the Praise and Glory for putting me in this situation, at such a wonderful time of the year.

I will be back with y'all shortly

God Bless

Dave

reformedct
Dec 21st 2008, 10:21 PM
Great, where's birth?


He also said

Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.
Psa 8:6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

So let me see if I have this right? I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made with a sin nature: it’s marvelous that I have this sin nature and that my soul is dead and knows very well, wrong and nothing right. ???
Are you serious?

Or

Psa 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

These don’t jive too well with
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

We have a contradiction so which way is it? Well, which ones are supported by other scripture? How did the same man that said shapen in iniquity, say fearfully and wonderfully made, protected in the womb, knows what is right, that God visits man and crowned man with glory and honor, and my God from the womb? He wrote so much about desiring God to break the wicked and deliver the righteous but all of a sudden he claims to be born with sin?
Are you serious?

Which ONES (used to make doctrine) are praise and which ONE (never used to make doctrine) is lamenting?
Is there figurative and poetic language in the context?
When it seems there is a contradiction in scripture, it either doesn’t mean what we think it means, or we have wrong theology leaning us in a certain direction causing the wrong interpretation.

Psalm 51 is not a proof text for a sin nature. It just means David was brought into a world (flesh/without God) that ensured he would sin, and sin he did, which is the lamenting context. It says his mother was ‘in sin’ when he was conceived, and she was, just like every other man before the Messiah.
Shapen doesn’t mean to shape something like most English speaking people read it. The word is used many different ways, but below are a few examples of how the Hebrew word (in bold) is used in conjunction with birth.

Isa 45:10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

The word is not applied to inside the womb but outside the womb to a child delivered and born into the world. Did a thing or disease called sin cling to David as he exited the womb and entered the world? Was he protected by God and fearfully and wonderfully made in the womb, then sinful as soon as he was born? Sin is something we do not something to be painted on. David was brought forth in iniquity and that’s what a lot of translations say. Psalm 51 is not an infant created with a sin nature. David is describing the state of his parents (in sin), and the world he was brought into that ensured he himself would sin. No? Then why do the verses both before and after speak of David’s own personal sin and have no mention of imputed sin from another? Why is there no mention of imputed sin from another anywhere in Scripture? Before Christ, we are dead in our sins as David’s parents were ‘in sin’, but it doesn’t say we are born that way. This is not a foreign concept to Christianity that says we are dead in our sin after walking naturally according to the course of this world. It says dead in our sin after living, not born dead in our sin. How can you be born dead in YOUR sin if YOU haven’t sinned?

David is very clear (as is all scripture) that it is his sin, not Adam’s or his fathers sin, he will be judged for even though consequences of Adam and possibly his fathers sin affected him.

Psa 51:2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
Psa 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
...........
Psa 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.


Great! Where's birth?


So Adam was a sinner by nature? Since I know you will say no, when did Adam's nature change?


Great! Where's birth?


first off, no you do not need a sin nature to sin. the only two human beings without a sin nature at birth were Adam and Jesus. Both Adam and Jesus had God as their direct Father. Adam chose to sin, Jesus did not

however unlike Adam and Jesus we have fallen mans nature in our blood

now let me say there is no contradiction between a sin nature and being made with glory and honor in psalms or romans or ephesians. Everything is true

as Gods creation, we have glory and dignity and honor. we are ferafully and wonderfully made, just like lions and tigers and bears. they are amazing creatures. So also humans are amazing creatures and fearfully and wonderfully made. However we are still tainted by sin. every part of our being is affected. IN Genesis before the flood, God said that even the animals were defiled. did the animals sin before Adam? no. Adam's sin afected even them. The whole world is groaning for redemption. The mountains, the seas, the valleys. The whole universe has been affevted by sin.

Yes we are all fearfully and wonderfully made, because we are God's creation and we bear the image of God. but our beings are also tainted

we have a sense of right and wrong like God, but because we are fallen we think some things are right that are actually wrong, like homosexual marriages. Our judgement, our will, our passions, our desires are tainted, stained with sin that we commit and also Adam's sin


let me ask you this...

By nature we are objects of Gods wrath. Not in the nature of what we do, but BY OUR NATURE, meaning the nature of our being. the only thing that provokes the wrath of God is sin. If we have no sin in our nature how can we by nature be objects of Gods wrath? what is he mad about if we have no sin in our nature?

drew
Dec 21st 2008, 10:23 PM
Ephesians 2: "we were by nature children of wrath", "dead in our tresspasses, following the prince of the power of the air(satan), the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience"
The text in question from Ephesians 2 can be legitimately read in a different way:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

When we read this as 21st century westerners, we think that when the phrase “by nature” is used, a statement is being made about our fundamental constitution. On such a reading, and noting the content of verse 1, it might indeed appear that Paul is saying that it is impossible for us to respond freely to God’s grace. After all, it is in the very nature of our mind to reject anything from God.

But there is precedent for Paul using the term "by nature" to really say "by birth".

Here is an example, Galations 2:15:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

And the Greek word rendered as "by nature" is the same word as used in a clearly "by birth" sense in Galatians 2:15. Here is Ephesians 2:1-3:

Ephesians 2:3 reads perfectly well with a "by birth" reading. And being "children of wrath" by birth in no way rules out a free will response to God in the way that being "children of wrath" by fundamental inner constitution indeed might.

So, unless and until the ambiguity of what Paul means by the phrase "by nature" is resolved Ephesians 2:1-3 does not support the notion that we cannot freely accept a gift of grace.

kenrank
Dec 21st 2008, 10:30 PM
Well then why send His Son to Die for Our Sins?

Because Adam's sin was passed on to all that follow. The wages of sin is death...to undo the curse of sin we needed to have one who knew not sin, die with no sin.

Peace.
Ken

reformedct
Dec 21st 2008, 10:34 PM
The text in question from Ephesians 2 can be legitimately read in a different way:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

When we read this as 21st century westerners, we think that when the phrase “by nature” is used, a statement is being made about our fundamental constitution. On such a reading, and noting the content of verse 1, it might indeed appear that Paul is saying that it is impossible for us to respond freely to God’s grace. After all, it is in the very nature of our mind to reject anything from God.

But there is precedent for Paul using the term "by nature" to really say "by birth".

Here is an example, Galations 2:15:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

And the Greek word rendered as "by nature" is the same word as used in a clearly "by birth" sense in Galatians 2:15. Here is Ephesians 2:1-3:

Ephesians 2:3 reads perfectly well with a "by birth" reading. And being "children of wrath" by birth in no way rules out a free will response to God in the way that being "children of wrath" by fundamental inner constitution indeed might.

So, unless and until the ambiguity of what Paul means by the phrase "by nature" is resolved Ephesians 2:1-3 does not support the notion that we cannot freely accept a gift of grace.


you have a good point as well. Unfortunately we are all going to see things differently it seems. when i read i was by nature an object of Gods wrath, i interpret it simply that my nature is sinful because the only thing God gets angry about is sin. i do not think it is a stretch and i believe my view to be accurate, however each one of us thinks our view is accurate so, oh well. im done with this thread haha

god bless

drew
Dec 21st 2008, 10:38 PM
We are sinners by nature because we have inherited our father Adam's nature. its really quite simple
My questioning of your use of the Ephesians 2 text should not be taken as statement of disagreement with your basic point. I entirely agree with the statement you make above - I do indeed believe that we have all inherited Adam's sin nature.

drew
Dec 21st 2008, 10:46 PM
The problem is that Paul uses death as a metaphor, Paul does not mean a person is dead. The Calvinist takes this to mean spiritually dead, however, there is no mention in the Scriptures of spiritual death. By saying we were dead in trespasses and sin Paul is saying we were unable to do anything about our condition. Whether a person wants to or not, they cannot make themselves born again or spiritually alive, that is something that only God can do. That does mean we cannot ask God to quicken us.
I agree with you (at least as I understand you).

I believe that that the "deadness" of mankind "in trespass and sin" is a "moral deadness" not a "cognitive" deadness. Our hopelessly fallen "moral" condition need not mean that we have lost the faculty to recognize ourselves as being in that state and then accept aid offered to us.

I would warn readers on all sides here to not assume that "dead" means "dead in every respect". We often use the term "dead" to refer to one aspect or dimension of a person's capacities (e.g. Fred is emotionally dead).

Consider this analogy: Let's say that my brain has been damaged in such a way that it is impossible for me to understand general relativity. Does this mean I cannot recognize and become aware of my incapacity in regard to general relativity? Obviously not. Blind people cannot see, but that does not mean they are not aware that sighted people have a capability that gives new information about the world.

In this example, I am "dead in my ignorance of general relativity", but I am not dead in other respects.

Suppose a surgeon comes along and says "We have this new operation that can fix your brain so that you can understand general relativity". Can I understand what he is claiming? Of course. Just like a blind person can understand that a certain operation might give him sight, even if he does not know what sight be like once he gets it (he has been blind from birth).

I trust the analogy is clear here. Unless it can be argued that our "deadness" extends to and includes our capacity to make judgements about ourselves and accept "a gift" that fixes our deadness, I do not see how these texts support a view that we cannot, as you say, "ask God to quicken us".

drew
Dec 21st 2008, 10:53 PM
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. 9:13

I believe this verse speaks loudly on this topic so this will be all I contribute in this thread.
The problem is that Paul tells us what the "election" or "choice" was - and it has nothing to do with pre-destination.

Paul is quite clear - he is talking about God "electing" the nation of the Edomites (Esau's descendents) to serve the Israelites (descendents of Jacob).

Pre-destination is simply not what Paul is talking about here.

BCF
Dec 21st 2008, 11:55 PM
Because Adam's sin was passed on to all that follow. The wages of sin is death...to undo the curse of sin we needed to have one who knew not sin, die with no sin.

Peace.
Ken

Ok...I agree with that. But then if you believe that is why God sent His Son.....why would you say this:


Yet, God knows who will and won't choose him...and He knew this from the beginning.

If God already knew who would choose him...and who would not choose him from the beginning...their would have been no reason for God to sent His Son to us, to die for our sins. We would have made the choice without Jesus according to your statement...b/c God had already predestined who would be with Him and who would not.


but because he knew from the foundation of the world... we were born into a direction he knew but we didn't.

If God already did something from the foundation of the world...none of us would be able to change what he did.
So why sent Jesus?

Do you not believe that God can overcome sin?

reformedct
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:32 AM
Ok...I agree with that. But then if you believe that is why God sent His Son.....why would you say this:



If God already knew who would choose him...and who would not choose him from the beginning...their would have been no reason for God to sent His Son to us, to die for our sins. We would have made the choice without Jesus according to your statement...b/c God had already predestined who would be with Him and who would not.



If God already did something from the foundation of the world...none of us would be able to change what he did.
So why sent Jesus?

Do you not believe that God can overcome sin?

God has declared that the wages of sin is death. Without Jesus, even if we "chose" God, we would still die. God set this whole thing up to display his great mercy for His Glory. He could have done it in an infinite number of ways, and He chose to use His only Son.

Yes God knew who and who would not "choose" Him, however He also knew that sinners must die. So he provided a lamb to atone for the sins of His chosen!

yes God could have overcome sin in another way but He chose Jesus.

you must understand that God does whatever He pleases

it pleased Him to crush Jesus, so thats what He decided to do.

Some people suffer extreme persecution for the faith. why?

because it pleased Him that His Name be glorified in the death of His saints

people will begin to think: what kind of God is this, that his servants are willing to peacefully lay down their lives for His name?

Its all for His glory according to whatever pleases Him

we gotta understand humans arent the center of the universe catered to by God

rather God is at the center and its all about Him, His name, His glory, forever and ever, Amen

Sirus
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:38 AM
however unlike Adam and Jesus we have fallen mans nature in our bloodI assume you have scripture to support this concept? Surely you would teach something that is not found in scripture would you?
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1895538&postcount=12
....or would you?



However we are still tainted by sin. every part of our being is affected. IN Genesis before the flood, God said that even the animals were defiled. did the animals sin before Adam? no. Adam's sin afected even them. The whole world is groaning for redemption. The mountains, the seas, the valleys. The whole universe has been affevted by sin.

Yes we are all fearfully and wonderfully made, because we are God's creation and we bear the image of God. but our beings are also taintedI'm talking birth. I understand sin-filled nature for those that are born and live in sin and are therefore full of sin (sinful), Got it. Agree. I'm talking birth. I am asking for scripture that Adam's sin directly tainted the nature of man so that all are born tainted. Have any? Just one?

Also, "animals were defiled'? I'll need scripture for that too. The very concept is silly. Animals do not have will and volition to choose good and evil. The are beast and act according to how they are made instinctively. Always have. No scripture says otherwise, EXCEPT when they are in the holy mountain of God or kingdom of God as with Jesus in the mountain.

Romans 8 says creation is groaning because God, not Adam, subjected them to corruption in hope of his glory which is future. Adam didn't cause it.



let me ask you this...

By nature we are objects of Gods wrath. Not in the nature of what we do, but BY OUR NATURE, meaning the nature of our being. the only thing that provokes the wrath of God is sin. If we have no sin in our nature how can we by nature be objects of Gods wrath? what is he mad about if we have no sin in our nature?First, what we do is not a nature, and cannot be. What we do is not a thing. Sin is not a thing. In order for some-thing to have a nature it must be a physical tangible thing, so an action has no nature.

Again, I am asking about our birth. Yes, we become objects of God's wrath by nature, that is, following the course of this world and spirit of this world and being carnal. That is what is says. It does not say we are born that way and no scripture does. I just answered, as I have in the links and other posts in this and other threads, how. It has nothing to do with our nature at birth, but it has every thing to do with our own personal sin committed against the natural/conscience law of God all men are born with.

Sirus
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:44 AM
Because Adam's sin was passed on to all that follow.Unfortunately not one verse in scripture says this.
Death passed on all because all sin. Sin is not passed...anywhere in scripture.

Sirus
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:48 AM
The problem is that Paul tells us what the "election" or "choice" was - and it has nothing to do with pre-destination.

Paul is quite clear - he is talking about God "electing" the nation of the Edomites (Esau's descendents) to serve the Israelites (descendents of Jacob).

Pre-destination is simply not what Paul is talking about here.I agree it is not about predestination but it is about election. Whether that is Christ coming through Jacob (Israel) or that is choosing before they were born and done any works, it is election. It's just not predestination. :bounce:

BCF
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:51 AM
[quote=Sirus;1914516]Who made the seed corruptible?

We are created by God out of three things. Those would be a Spirit (which is God), a Soul (which controls our mind, will, and emotions), and a Body (which is what we call our flesh). The seed of MAN (not the Spirit of man... but the Body) of Man, was corrupted by Adam and Eve in the Garden. You can read this in Genesis 2:21-23 from the beginning where it says:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he (God) took one of his (Adams) ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man (Adam), made he (God) a woman, and brought her unto the man (Adam). And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (in Hebrew meaning ish - shaw... meaning, the first form of female in this verse), because she was taken out of man (in Hebrew meaning eesh...meaning, a male as an individual person)."

Now...From the proof of scripture from above...we can see that Adam and Eve had a physical Body (Flesh) that was made from dust. In Genesis 1:27-28, we can read that God also gave Adam and Eve a Spirit (which is God =Holy Spirit), and a Soul (which controls our mind, will, and emotions). In these verses we read this:

"So God created Man (Adam) in His own Image (which according to Jesus in John 4:24 is a Spirit), in the image (Spirit) of God created he (God) him (Adam); male and female created he (God) them. And God blessed them, and said unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth (in Hebrew means raw - mas...meaning, to crawl or move with short steps) upon the earth."

As we can see from the above scripture proof....God gave Adam and Eve a Spirit of Himself (which we call the Holy Spirit), and God gave them a Soul. Without a Soul man could not be dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and every living things that moveth upon the earth....without a mind, a will, or without emotions.

Now....everything that has been outlined above....all happened before the fall of man. Up until the fall of man their was no sin on the earth, and everything that God created was good and perfect. We have proof of this by reading Genesis 2. But there is one thing that I would like to point out in Genesis 2, that God tells Adam and Eve not to do....and if they would do it...they would die.
The verses I would like to point out is Genesis 2:16-17. The writer Moses records it like this:

"And the Lord God commanded the man (not the woman), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (in Greek means apoleia...meaning, ruin or loss physical or Spiritual eternal.)"

Everybody knows that Adam and Eve ate from the tree which caused sin to come into this world. But what everyone does not know or believe, is that when they ate from that tree, they caused a Spiritual Death in Man...not a Physical Death. That Spiritual Death which they caused is the reason for the Physical Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Without the Death of Our Lord Jesus...there would be no Comforter (Holy Spirit) by God, to indwell in us, so that we can follow after Our Lord. Simply b/c Adam and Eve killed it in the beginning. We know that b/c Adam and Eve did not die after they ate from the tree like God said that they would. Instead...they lived to be 900+ years after the fact. Because of what Adam and Eve did...back in the Garden....the body and flesh have been corrupted and the Spirit in a new born child is dead. Until they come to know Christ.

There is your proven scripture from the beginning and I am just getting started. I have a lot more to answer you on my friend from your answer to me. But I'll give this to you to chew on for awhile.

God Bless,

Dave

reformedct
Dec 22nd 2008, 01:58 AM
I assume you have scripture to support this concept? Surely you would teach something that is not found in scripture would you?
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1895538&postcount=12
....or would you?


I'm talking birth. I understand sin-filled nature for those that are born and live in sin and are therefore full of sin (sinful), Got it. Agree. I'm talking birth. I am asking for scripture that Adam's sin directly tainted the nature of man so that all are born tainted. Have any? Just one?

Also, "animals were defiled'? I'll need scripture for that too. The very concept is silly. Animals do not have will and volition to choose good and evil. The are beast and act according to how they are made instinctively. Always have. No scripture says otherwise, EXCEPT when they are in the holy mountain of God or kingdom of God as with Jesus in the mountain.

Romans 8 says creation is groaning because God, not Adam, subjected them to corruption in hope of his glory which is future. Adam didn't cause it.


First, what we do is not a nature, and cannot be. What we do is not a thing. Sin is not a thing. In order for some-thing to have a nature it must be a physical tangible thing, so an action has no nature.

Again, I am asking about our birth. Yes, we become objects of God's wrath by nature, that is, following the course of this world and spirit of this world and being carnal. That is what is says. It does not say we are born that way and no scripture does. I just answered, as I have in the links and other posts in this and other threads, how. It has nothing to do with our nature at birth, but it has every thing to do with our own personal sin committed against the natural/conscience law of God all men are born with.

first off let me apologize with the way i worded that.

sin is not a physical feature, like dna

thats not what i meant when i said that

i meant we are corrupted by sin in all areas of our being. Our blood is affected by the corruption of sin. But sin itself is not a physical grain. You cant extract sin from a body (unless you are God, as he will when we are glorified)

in so saying, at birth we are subject to this corruption of Adam

our will is corrupted, and our spirits are born seperated from God

God is Life. So if we are not connected to God, what condition are we in?

i see you are asking for versus about birth. as i cited the one about being shaped in iniquity, i think you are asking for direct evidence that we are sinners at birth

i dont think there are specific scriptures stating: you are a sinner by birth. however if it says our natures are objects of God's wrath, then that means our nature period. at whatever time of our existence, our nature, apart from a touch of God is sinful. We are born in sin. we are under the bondage of sin and the sinful corruption affects our nature and is in our nature and influences us to use our will to choose evil

BroRog
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:03 AM
The problem is that Paul tells us what the "election" or "choice" was - and it has nothing to do with pre-destination.

Paul is quite clear - he is talking about God "electing" the nation of the Edomites (Esau's descendents) to serve the Israelites (descendents of Jacob).

Pre-destination is simply not what Paul is talking about here.

If the passage has nothing to do with predestination, then how does it support Paul's argument that election is by God's choice? In other words, if Paul is saying A + B = C, and you say he isn't teaching B but D instead, then his argument falls apart.

This is the concept he is trying to defend.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

He gives two examples from the lives of the Patriarchs to prove his case.

You are attempting to say that Paul's second example does not apply to individual election, which results in your (inadvertent?) denial that this event in Jacob's life supports his case.

However, Paul seems to view things differently.

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls . . .

Even if one wanted to deny that this example speaks to individual election, one can not deny that God is orchestrating the history of two entire nations such that the nation of Esau serves the nation of Jacob. So if God can predetermine to orchestrate the histories of two entire nations, what's so hard about doing the same thing for two individual people?

But then, if Paul is using this event from Jacob's life to prove that God has chosen the entire nation of Jacob, then how can these events serve his argument that God is sorting through Jacob's nation to bless individual people among them?

Your interpretation defeats Paul's goal.

drew
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:40 AM
If the passage has nothing to do with predestination, then how does it support Paul's argument that election is by God's choice? In other words, if Paul is saying A + B = C, and you say he isn't teaching B but D instead, then his argument falls apart.
I believe that I never said that Paul's broader argument was not about "pre-destination". I do not dispute that Paul is constructing argument that will lead to him having something to say about God's election to an eternal destiny.

But we need to let Paul make the argument and not get ahead of him. The Esau / Jacob account is not an example of God "electing unto eternal destiny" - it is what Paul says it is, God's choice of Esau's nation to serve Jacob's nation. Why do people insist on trumping what Paul says the choice was about and inserting their own answer - predestination. Paul is quite clear - the choice in the matter of Jacob and Esau had nothing to with eternal destiny.

Paul may be using this pointing about God "choosing" in support of a later argument about choice unto eternal destiny (e.g. the vessels of mercy), but it is what it is - a statement about how God made the choice to have the Edomites serve the Israelites.

drew
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:01 AM
This is the concept he is trying to defend.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

He gives two examples from the lives of the Patriarchs to prove his case.

You are attempting to say that Paul's second example does not apply to individual election, which results in your (inadvertent?) denial that this event in Jacob's life supports his case.

However, Paul seems to view things differently.

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls . . .

Even if one wanted to deny that this example speaks to individual election, one can not deny that God is orchestrating the history of two entire nations such that the nation of Esau serves the nation of Jacob. So if God can predetermine to orchestrate the histories of two entire nations, what's so hard about doing the same thing for two individual people?

But then, if Paul is using this event from Jacob's life to prove that God has chosen the entire nation of Jacob, then how can these events serve his argument that God is sorting through Jacob's nation to bless individual people among them?

Your interpretation defeats Paul's goal.
No. My interpretation is entirely consistent with a conclusion that Paul is mounting an argument about pre-destination of individuals. I happen to believe that this is not Paul's ultimate point here, but that is a separate issue.

Paul can indeed construct an argument about pre-destination of individuals using examples of God making choices other than choices about eternal destinies of individuals.

And it is simply undeniable that in the cases of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, the choice that Paul describes is something other than an eternal fate. Paul tells us what those choices were so we are left with no option but to take him at his word.

The error is to get ahead of Paul in his own argument. Even if I held the view that the ultimate point of Paul's argument here was predestination of individuals, I would have to take Paul at his word and acknowledge that the examples he gives about God making choices are not choices about eternal destinies.

BCF
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:08 AM
Earlier you said "our flesh according to Paul in Romans 7 is sinfull", but my question is at birth not after we have lived according to the natural course of this world. Flesh is dying, decaying, corruptible flesh. The greek is sarx and it is never sinful nature. If the Holy Spirit wanted to say sinful nature there is greek words for sin, full -sinful, and nature, but He chose to use the word sarx. Amazing how that works, eh?

Yes.....I can agree with your Greek definition of Flesh. That it is sarx, and that it means sin, full-sinful, and nature. But there is one that you overlooked my friend...and it is that one that you overlooked that Paul is describing in Romans 7. That would be that the flesh is also carnal. In Romans 7 Paul is describing how he fights between his carnal flesh and his Spirit on a daily basis. It is nothing more then what we do on a daily basis. Paul's Spirit is alive...but he still deals with the carnal flesh that he has inherited from Adam. We know this b/c he finishes Romans 7 by saying this:

"24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind (Soul) I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh (body) the law of sin."

Like I told you before....Without the Death of Our Lord Jesus...there would be no Comforter (Holy Spirit) by God, to indwell in us, so that we can follow after Our Lord. Simply b/c Adam and Eve killed it in the beginning.
Without the death of Our Lord...Paul would not be able to be delivered from the body of death that his flesh processed, b/c his body was carnal. But b/c of the death of Jesus his Soul (mind, will, and emotions) could overcome his Body (Flesh) and he could be set free from the death of corruption.

It is for this cause that Paul goes on to write in Romans 12:1-2 the following:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

God Bless

Dave

Butch5
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:08 AM
[quote=Sirus;1914516]Who made the seed corruptible?

We are created by God out of three things. Those would be a Spirit (which is God), a Soul (which controls our mind, will, and emotions), and a Body (which is what we call our flesh). The seed of MAN (not the Spirit of man... but the Body) of Man, was corrupted by Adam and Eve in the Garden. You can read this in Genesis 2:21-23 from the beginning where it says:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he (God) took one of his (Adams) ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man (Adam), made he (God) a woman, and brought her unto the man (Adam). And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (in Hebrew meaning ish - shaw... meaning, the first form of female in this verse), because she was taken out of man (in Hebrew meaning eesh...meaning, a male as an individual person)."

Now...From the proof of scripture from above...we can see that Adam and Eve had a physical Body (Flesh) that was made from dust. In Genesis 1:27-28, we can read that God also gave Adam and Eve a Spirit (which is God =Holy Spirit), and a Soul (which controls our mind, will, and emotions). In these verses we read this:

"So God created Man (Adam) in His own Image (which according to Jesus in John 4:24 is a Spirit), in the image (Spirit) of God created he (God) him (Adam); male and female created he (God) them. And God blessed them, and said unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth (in Hebrew means raw - mas...meaning, to crawl or move with short steps) upon the earth."

As we can see from the above scripture proof....God gave Adam and Eve a Spirit of Himself (which we call the Holy Spirit), and God gave them a Soul. Without a Soul man could not be dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and every living things that moveth upon the earth....without a mind, a will, or without emotions.

Now....everything that has been outlined above....all happened before the fall of man. Up until the fall of man their was no sin on the earth, and everything that God created was good and perfect. We have proof of this by reading Genesis 2. But there is one thing that I would like to point out in Genesis 2, that God tells Adam and Eve not to do....and if they would do it...they would die.
The verses I would like to point out is Genesis 2:16-17. The writer Moses records it like this:

"And the Lord God commanded the man (not the woman), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (in Greek means apoleia...meaning, ruin or loss physical or Spiritual eternal.)"

Everybody knows that Adam and Eve ate from the tree which caused sin to come into this world. But what everyone does not know or believe, is that when they ate from that tree, they caused a Spiritual Death in Man...not a Physical Death. That Spiritual Death which they caused is the reason for the Physical Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Without the Death of Our Lord Jesus...there would be no Comforter (Holy Spirit) by God, to indwell in us, so that we can follow after Our Lord. Simply b/c Adam and Eve killed it in the beginning. We know that b/c Adam and Eve did not die after they ate from the tree like God said that they would. Instead...they lived to be 900+ years after the fact. Because of what Adam and Eve did...back in the Garden....the body and flesh have been corrupted and the Spirit in a new born child is dead. Until they come to know Christ.

There is your proven scripture from the beginning and I am just getting started. I have a lot more to answer you on my friend from your answer to me. But I'll give this to you to chew on for awhile.

God Bless,

Dave

Hi Dave,

Can you please show me any Scripture that speaks of this spiritual death

Man-ofGod
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:15 AM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lol


So, how do you guys reconcile this information:

God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell

this is why i believe in double predestination

opinions? scriptures?

A lot of Christians get confused on this point. God created us knowing that we were going to be sinners. I use this point from a pro-life point of view. If you knew your kid was going to be a murderer, would you abort him or have him anyway? Well God knew we were, and still created us.

God is not so sadistic that he created sinners to burn us in a everlasting hell. Its just not a logical thing to do for a perfect all knowing God. My viewpoint is hell is not everlasting but is just a place were sinners go to be destroyed. Anything else in my point of view is not biblical and is not in line with Gods character.

God Bless.

BCF
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:21 AM
[quote=BCF;1914893]

Hi Dave,

Can you please show me any Scripture that speaks of this spiritual death

I just wrote it, and I guess you just read it. It is all found in Genesis 1-2 as I said before and explained. Just follow the scripture, and lookup the Hebrew words that I had already presented...and you will see it for your self. I have written all of the scripture that is needed for now in my post #77.

There are a whole lot more....but there is no reason running before one starts to walk.

Sirus
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:47 AM
Who made the seed corruptible?

We are created by God out of three things. Those would be a Spirit (which is God), a Soul (which controls our mind, will, and emotions), and a Body (which is what we call our flesh). The seed of MAN (not the Spirit of man... but the Body) of Man, was corrupted by Adam and Eve in the Garden. You can read this in Genesis 2:21-23 from the beginning where it says:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he (God) took one of his (Adams) ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man (Adam), made he (God) a woman, and brought her unto the man (Adam). And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (in Hebrew meaning ish - shaw... meaning, the first form of female in this verse), because she was taken out of man (in Hebrew meaning eesh...meaning, a male as an individual person)."

Now...From the proof of scripture from above...we can see that Adam and Eve had a physical Body (Flesh) that was made from dust. In Genesis 1:27-28, we can read that God also gave Adam and Eve a Spirit (which is God =Holy Spirit), and a Soul (which controls our mind, will, and emotions). In these verses we read this:

"So God created Man (Adam) in His own Image (which according to Jesus in John 4:24 is a Spirit), in the image (Spirit) of God created he (God) him (Adam); male and female created he (God) them. And God blessed them, and said unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth (in Hebrew means raw - mas...meaning, to crawl or move with short steps) upon the earth."

As we can see from the above scripture proof....God gave Adam and Eve a Spirit of Himself (which we call the Holy Spirit), and God gave them a Soul. Without a Soul man could not be dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and every living things that moveth upon the earth....without a mind, a will, or without emotions.

Now....everything that has been outlined above....all happened before the fall of man. Up until the fall of man their was no sin on the earth, and everything that God created was good and perfect. We have proof of this by reading Genesis 2. But there is one thing that I would like to point out in Genesis 2, that God tells Adam and Eve not to do....and if they would do it...they would die.
The verses I would like to point out is Genesis 2:16-17. The writer Moses records it like this:

"And the Lord God commanded the man (not the woman), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (in Greek means apoleia...meaning, ruin or loss physical or Spiritual eternal.)"

Everybody knows that Adam and Eve ate from the tree which caused sin to come into this world. But what everyone does not know or believe, is that when they ate from that tree, they caused a Spiritual Death in Man...not a Physical Death. That Spiritual Death which they caused is the reason for the Physical Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Without the Death of Our Lord Jesus...there would be no Comforter (Holy Spirit) by God, to indwell in us, so that we can follow after Our Lord. Simply b/c Adam and Eve killed it in the beginning. We know that b/c Adam and Eve did not die after they ate from the tree like God said that they would. Instead...they lived to be 900+ years after the fact. Because of what Adam and Eve did...back in the Garden....the body and flesh have been corrupted and the Spirit in a new born child is dead. Until they come to know Christ.

There is your proven scripture from the beginning and I am just getting started. I have a lot more to answer you on my friend from your answer to me. But I'll give this to you to chew on for awhile.

God Bless,

DaveThanks! I've chewed that for years along with the breath of life that made man a living soul seen throughout scripture that man still has, just as Adam. It is not Spirit it is spirit.

breath, 12
Gen_2:7, Gen_7:22, 1Ki_17:17, Job_33:3-4 (2), Job_34:14, Job_37:10, Psa_150:6, Isa_2:22, Isa_30:33, Isa_42:5, Dan_10:17

blast, 3
2Sa_22:16, Job_4:9, Psa_18:15

breathe, 2
Jos_11:11, Jos_11:14

breathed, 2
Jos_10:40, 1Ki_15:29

spirit, 2
Job_26:4, Pro_20:27

breatheth, 1
Deu_20:16

inspiration, 1
Job_32:8

souls, 1
Isa_57:16

Spiritual death is not the cause of physical death. Both are cased by the one and same act of disobedience. Spiritual death is simply a veiled relationship no longer in the garden and cool of the day walk with God. Anything more is not scriptural.

The death most certainly was physical as seen when God handed down judgment to Adam after Adam sinned. God kicked Adam out of the garden separating him from the tree of life which caused Adam to physically die even though he was already dying -dying you will die -thou shall surely die. It was God that said Adam would live forever in sin if not separated from the tree of life.

Butch5
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:56 AM
reformedct---can you supply scripture that says paul was metaphorically speaking when he said we were dead in our tresspasses?

You are saying that being dead ins sin is being spiritually dead, correct? consider this,

Romans 7:8-12 ( KJV ) 8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

If we understand dead in sin to mean spiritually dead, we have a problem here, Paul says I was alive without the law once, then the commandment came and I died. Paul wasn't alive when the law was instituted, so when he says the command came, he must mean it as a metaphor. Also He says he was alive once, so, was Paul spiritually alive, then the commandment came and he spiritually died, and then when Christ came to him he was made spiritually alive again??? Surly not. If we understand it as a metaphor it goes like this, Paul was alive once, (not convicted of sin, before he understood the law), then the command came and I died (he understood the law and became convicted of sin), then Christ came and Paul was made spiritually alive (born again). Paul uses metaphors quite a bit in his writing.


reformedct---and yes god glorifies who he justifies, but God still gets the Glory for the whole sha-bang! He gets the ultimate glory for being merciful enough to glorify sinful man. And i believe glorified in that verse refers to glorification when we recieve glorified bodies, not glory in general

There is one problem with that understanding, Paul is using the verb glorified in the past tense. This is a completed act of God. Something that God has already done, therefore it cannot refer to something future



reformedct---but let me just ask this one question:

you guys are saying that man is shaped in iniquity....




When David said he was shaped in iniquity, he was speaking of himself, not all of mankind. The Psalm was a plea to God, by David of himself.


reformedct---but he is inherently good?

There is none righteous or good in the true sense, however that does not mean that man is incapable of doing good. However consider this, when the ruler came to Jesus and said good Master, Jesus said why do you call me good? There is none good, so Jesus did not even consider himself good, how could anyone be good? However again that does not mean that man cannot do good, consider Zacharias and Elizabeth

Luke 1:5-6 ( KJV ) 5There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

The were both righteous before God, why? Because they walked in His commandments and all of His ordinances. Were they perfect? no. Were they sinless? No. yet God counted them righteous.




reformedct---is there scripture that supports that mankind is actually good from birth he just does bad?


Genesis 1:26-31 ( KJV ) 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.



29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

BCF
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:08 AM
Butch5,

The biggest mistake that is made when looking at these scriptures is....taking something out of context.

To show you scripture that is going to come right out and say Spiritual Death....you or I will not find. But when you study and read what the Bible presents by itself, you can come to a conclusion of a Spiritual Death or even a Eternal Death rather then a Physical Death.

I will use the scripture that I used in my post #77 to try and help you see what I mean.

In Genesis 2:16-17, we find the writer Moses telling us this:

"And the Lord God commanded the man (not the woman), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The word die here in this verse does not mean Physical Death. It can only mean a Spiritual Death. Why? Because of what God said in those verses...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." As you and everyone else who reads the Bible...when they ate from the tree....they did not die a Physical Death on that day like God said that they would. Now....b/c they did not die a physical death we have one of two conclusions to come to. Either they died a Spiritual Death.....or God is a lier. I don't believe that God is a lier any more then I believe that I am going to the moon tomorrow. But God said that....for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, and I believe they did. But what kind of death could it be? So you study the word die in Hebrew and Greek and find out that in Greek the word die means apoleia....which means, ruin or loss physical or Spiritual eternal.

Well since Adam and Eve did not die a Physical death like God said they would after eating from the tree....they had to die a Spiritual Death after eating from the tree. Why? Because I don't believe that God can lie.

Hope that helps you understand where in scripture it tells us about a Spiritual Death.

God Bless

Dave

Butch5
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:26 AM
Butch5,

The biggest mistake that is made when looking at these scriptures is....taking something out of context.

To show you scripture that is going to come right out and say Spiritual Death....you or I will not find. But when you study and read what the Bible presents by itself, you can come to a conclusion of a Spiritual Death or even a Eternal Death rather then a Physical Death.

I will use the scripture that I used in my post #77 to try and help you see what I mean.

In Genesis 2:16-17, we find the writer Moses telling us this:

"And the Lord God commanded the man (not the woman), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The word die here in this verse does not mean Physical Death. It can only mean a Spiritual Death. Why? Because of what God said in those verses...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." As you and everyone else who reads the Bible...when they ate from the tree....they did not die a Physical Death on that day like God said that they would. Now....b/c they did not die a physical death we have one of two conclusions to come to. Either they died a Spiritual Death.....or God is a lier. I don't believe that God is a lier any more then I believe that I am going to the moon tomorrow. But God said that....for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, and I believe they did. But what kind of death could it be? So you study the word die in Hebrew and Greek and find out that in Greek the word die means apoleia....which means, ruin or loss physical or Spiritual eternal.

Well since Adam and Eve did not die a Physical death like God said they would after eating from the tree....they had to die a Spiritual Death after eating from the tree. Why? Because I don't believe that God can lie.

Hope that helps you understand where in scripture it tells us about a Spiritual Death.

God Bless

Dave

Hi Dave,

I used to hold to that position, however, I found some serious flaws with it. One being, if this is spiritual death, it is a major theme throughout the Bible. It seems strange that it is "never" directly mentioned. Also, there is "no" mention in the Scriptures of spiritual death. Another is that the rich man who went to hell in Jesus parable was "not" spiritually dead. Another is, if this is spiritual death, that came through Adam's sin, where did physical death come from? Also as has been mentioned the phrase in dying you will die, indicates that Adam began to die that day. However, Thaddeus posed a very plausible post to me regarding this, which I had never contemplated. Adam lived 930 years, consider what Peter said,

2 Peter 3:8 ( KJV ) 8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The same thing is said in,

Psalms 90:4 ( KJV ) 4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

IF we apply this to what God said, Adam did die the same day.

BroRog
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:33 AM
No. My interpretation is entirely consistent with a conclusion that Paul is mounting an argument about pre-destination of individuals. I happen to believe that this is not Paul's ultimate point here, but that is a separate issue.

Paul can indeed construct an argument about pre-destination of individuals using examples of God making choices other than choices about eternal destinies of individuals.

And it is simply undeniable that in the cases of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, the choice that Paul describes is something other than an eternal fate. Paul tells us what those choices were so we are left with no option but to take him at his word.

The error is to get ahead of Paul in his own argument. Even if I held the view that the ultimate point of Paul's argument here was predestination of individuals, I would have to take Paul at his word and acknowledge that the examples he gives about God making choices are not choices about eternal destinies.

Paul's ultimate point is not to make a case for predestination. He and his readers already share this viewpoint in common. His point is to make a case for individual election. That is, while it is true that the Jews as a people are the elect of God, God has the right to chose among them which will be saved and which will not.

TrustingFollower
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:37 AM
In Genesis 2:16-17, we find the writer Moses telling us this:

"And the Lord God commanded the man (not the woman), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The word die here in this verse does not mean Physical Death. It can only mean a Spiritual Death. Why? Because of what God said in those verses...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." As you and everyone else who reads the Bible...when they ate from the tree....they did not die a Physical Death on that day like God said that they would. Now....b/c they did not die a physical death we have one of two conclusions to come to. Either they died a Spiritual Death.....or God is a lier. I don't believe that God is a lier any more then I believe that I am going to the moon tomorrow. But God said that....for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, and I believe they did. But what kind of death could it be? So you study the word die in Hebrew and Greek and find out that in Greek the word die means apoleia....which means, ruin or loss physical or Spiritual eternal.

Well since Adam and Eve did not die a Physical death like God said they would after eating from the tree....they had to die a Spiritual Death after eating from the tree. Why? Because I don't believe that God can lie.

Hope that helps you understand where in scripture it tells us about a Spiritual Death.

God Bless

Dave
How sure that Adam did not die a physical death the day that he ate of the tree of Good and Evil?

Genesis 5

5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Psalms 90

4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3

8 ¶But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

So we see that Adam lived 930 years, 70 years short of a full day to God according to what both the OT and the NT teaches in scripture. So I would have to conclude that not only did Adam die spiritually, but he also in deed died physically the day he ate of the forbidden fruit.

BCF
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:44 AM
The death most certainly was physical as seen when God handed down judgment to Adam after Adam sinned. God kicked Adam out of the garden separating him from the tree of life which caused Adam to physically die even though he was already dying -dying you will die -thou shall surely die. It was God that said Adam would live forever in sin if not separated from the tree of life.

Well then you are calling God a lier. God said that they would die as soon as they would eat from the tree of knowledge.

"Genesis 2:17, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

God did not say that I will come down in the cool of the night and ask you what you did before you die. God said, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

As far as your theory goes on the fact that it was indeed a physical Death that Adam and Eve suffered, due to the judgment that God put upon them by kicking them out of the Garden....how does your theory fit into this scripture of physical death that God told Adam before he kicked him out of the Garden.

In Genesis 3:17, Moses writes this to us:

And unto Adam he (God) said, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of they wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (life in Hebrew means khah ' ee, which meansalive.)

Now I ask you....how can somebody physical die and still be physical alive to toil the ground because of their sin?

You theory does not add up to scripture.

God Bless,

Dave

drew
Dec 22nd 2008, 04:51 AM
Paul's ultimate point is not to make a case for predestination. He and his readers already share this viewpoint in common. His point is to make a case for individual election.
That is what I meant. But I suggest the force of my previous argument still works. Paul could make an argument about individual election by using example of God's choice that have nothing to do with individual election.

Now, I happen to believe that Paul is not, in fact, making an argument about individual election.

But, either way, there is no doubt - in the case of Esau / Jacob and Pharoah - the "election" being described has nothing whatsoever to do with Esau or Jacob or Pharoah being elected to one eternal fate or the other.

BroRog
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:06 AM
But we need to let Paul make the argument and not get ahead of him. The Esau / Jacob account is not an example of God "electing unto eternal destiny" - it is what Paul says it is, God's choice of Esau's nation to serve Jacob's nation. Why do people insist on trumping what Paul says the choice was about and inserting their own answer - predestination. Paul is quite clear - the choice in the matter of Jacob and Esau had nothing to with eternal destiny.

We disagree, I think, because you have placed the emphasis on the wrong aspect of the story. Granted, the prophecy concerning the fact that
Esau's nation will serve Jacob's nation concerns nations, but that fact is tangential to the primary issue for Paul. The main aspect of this story that works to support Paul's argument is the idea that God made his choice before the boys were born or had a chance to do good or bad.

I also think your argument doesn't give enough weight to the value of an inheritance, a blessing, and the birthright, which seems to be the main point of contention between Jacob and Esau and central issue in their life as brothers. The fact that Esau's offspring became the servants of Jacob's is very much a personal and individual matter. The hope and expectation of a future inheritance is one thing Jacob and Isaac and the rest of us share with Father Abraham.

You are mistaken to assume that the destiny of Jacob's offspring has nothing to do with his faith or his hope for an inheritance beyond this world. The issue of the inheritance should always be seen in the context of God's promise to Abraham, and Abraham's understanding that the promise transcends this age. Jacob shared his grandfather's hope for a coming age, which we discover as we read his interaction with his brother Esau.

Unlike his brother, Esau did not share his brother's hopeful expectation of an eternal promise. Instead, Esau found value in the transitory things of life. He despised his birthright and his blessing such that he was willing to sell his birthright for a bowl of soup.

The point is, the fact that Esau's family line ended up serving Jacob's family line is NOT the main point. It only serves to give credence to the idea that God was going to give his eternal blessings to Jacob instead of Esau, but not because of Jacob's choice but to serve God's purposes. The lesson we learn from the Patriarchs is the fact that true authentic faith must project itself beyond a man's limited lifetime. How God treated Jacob's offspring is very much a part of God's faithfulness to Jacob and Abraham, even while these men await their inheritance from the grave.

Likewise, we also await an inheritance that comes, perhaps, after we have fallen asleep in Christ. We must project our faith out beyond our own lifespan and trust that God will be our God even if it requires that he bring us back from the dead.

BCF
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:14 AM
How sure that Adam did not die a physical death the day that he ate of the tree of Good and Evil?

Genesis 5

5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Psalms 90

4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3

8 ¶But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

So we see that Adam lived 930 years, 70 years short of a full day to God according to what both the OT and the NT teaches in scripture. So I would have to conclude that not only did Adam die spiritually, but he also in deed died physically the day he ate of the forbidden fruit.


Psalms 90:4, does not tell me that Adam died Physically. What that scripture shows me is what we think as time is not the same as what God has as time. The same goes for 2Peter 3:8, that God's days are not like our days. But it does not tell me anything about Adam having a Physical Death as soon as he ate from the apple.

I'm sorry but there is nothing in those scriptures that support that.

kenrank
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:40 AM
If God already knew who would choose him...and who would not choose him from the beginning...their would have been no reason for God to sent His Son to us, to die for our sins. We would have made the choice without Jesus according to your statement...b/c God had already predestined who would be with Him and who would not.

There is a difference between God knowing (because he is all-knowing) from the beginning who would choose him and who would not....and God creating some to live and some to die. The latter is dismissed in the following two verses.

Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


If God already did something from the foundation of the world...none of us would be able to change what he did.
So why sent Jesus?

Again, there is a difference between "knowing" something from the foundation of the world...and creating people to be damned. The latter gives no chance at life. When scripture says "that WHOSOEVER believes in him," it is trumped and a moot verse because some can't have that chance to believe? I don't buy that. I am open to your interpretation if it differs, but you'll have to have some strong evidence.


Do you not believe that God can overcome sin?

I believe God can perect who he wills. Again, don't misunderstand my initial point. All I am saying is that because God sits outside of time and knew in the beginning who would be with him in the end....knowing that doesn't change the rules. Adam's curse could only be un-done through the actions of one who knew no sin. Yet, we don't know what God knows, and we can choose. He might know what they choice will, but we don't. So we carefully divide the Word of God and we choose to believe or not.

Peace.
Ken

TrustingFollower
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:47 AM
I don't see what is in question here. Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 show us that to God one day is 1000 years of our time. If Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5) that would make him dying 70, our time, short of 1 full day to God. It is plain as day to me and if you still don't see what this is then we can look further into it, but perhaps that would be better as a thread of it's own as to not derail this one.

Sirus
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:53 AM
Well then you are calling God a lier. God said that they would die as soon as they would eat from the tree of knowledge.

"Genesis 2:17, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

God did not say that I will come down in the cool of the night and ask you what you did before you die. God said, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

As far as your theory goes on the fact that it was indeed a physical Death that Adam and Eve suffered, due to the judgment that God put upon them by kicking them out of the Garden....how does your theory fit into this scripture of physical death that God told Adam before he kicked him out of the Garden.

In Genesis 3:17, Moses writes this to us:

And unto Adam he (God) said, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of they wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (life in Hebrew means khah ' ee, which meansalive.)

Now I ask you....how can somebody physical die and still be physical alive to toil the ground because of their sin?

You theory does not add up to scripture.

God Bless,

Dave

I told you how. Look up that same phrase in scripture;
shalt surely die
and you will see how it works, and you will do so studying scripture holistically.

kenrank
Dec 22nd 2008, 06:08 AM
I don't see what is in question here. Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 show us that to God one day is 1000 years of our time. If Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5) that would make him dying 70, our time, short of 1 full day to God. It is plain as day to me and if you still don't see what this is then we can look further into it, but perhaps that would be better as a thread of it's own as to not derail this one.

With all due respect TF, I don't think "a day is as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day" means that is literal. The word "as" is used as a conjunction in that verse, from Websters: usually used as a correlative after an adjective or adverb modified by adverbial as or so<as cool as a cucumber> Is the cucumber "cool," no...the word "as" works as a correlative. Same with "as a day." God is timeless, time is irrelevant with him. Time is the result of his creation, before creaton, time did not exist. He sits outside fo time. The verse could just as accurately state "one day to God is as 1,000,000 years, or 1,000,000,000..." So Adam indeed lived 930 years, and that is our time.

The curse as a result of Adam's sin is progressive. We see that in the context of scripture throughout. In other words, it gets worse and worse. They lived longer lives back then because they were closer in time to the perfection of creation...the further in time we get from that perfection, the more the ravages of that curse effects us. If it weren't for modern technology, we would have much shorter life spans than we do.

Just throwing that out for your consideration.

Peace.
Ken

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:54 PM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lol


So, how do you guys reconcile this information:

God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell

this is why i believe in double predestination

opinions? scriptures?


As a formerly believer in Reformed Faith belief, let me say this. I believe God knows all that is or will happen in our timeline. He knows this because he exists outside of our time. However, I don't agree with the position that he 'chose' or 'predestined' those who would be save, as that would seem to contradict with his knowing. What I believe, is that those God foreknew would come to believe, those he chose and predestined to be of use or service to him. That's the way I understand predestination scripturally.

drew
Dec 22nd 2008, 02:47 PM
Paul's ultimate point is not to make a case for predestination. He and his readers already share this viewpoint in common. His point is to make a case for individual election. That is, while it is true that the Jews as a people are the elect of God, God has the right to chose among them which will be saved and which will not.
I understand, and have acknowledged, that Paul could be mounting a case for individual election.

I do not think that this is the case, but that is a separate discussion.

Even if Paul is mounting such a case, it is patently clear that the "election" in the examples of Jacob / Esau and Pharoah is not an election unto eternal life:

1. In the case of Esau / Jacob, the election is an election that the Edomites will serve the Israelites.

2. In the case of Pharoah the election is an election of Pharoah to resist the exodus.

I am not saying that the fact that these "elections" are not unto an eternal destiny means that Paul is not going to use these examples in support of a later statement about individual election.

There are a raft of other reasons to understand that Paul is not at all concerned, in Romans 9 anyway, with making statements about the election of individuals to some eternal destiny.

drew
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:19 PM
We disagree, I think, because you have placed the emphasis on the wrong aspect of the story. Granted, the prophecy concerning the fact that Esau's nation will serve Jacob's nation concerns nations, but that fact is tangential to the primary issue for Paul. The main aspect of this story that works to support Paul's argument is the idea that God made his choice before the boys were born or had a chance to do good or bad.
OK. I am with you so far, but the fact that a choice was made "before birth" does not mean that Paul is mounting an argument about "election unto eternal life". He could be mounting an argument about any choice that God makes before one is born.

By the way, I believe that when Paul refers to "works" here, he is not referring to "good work", he is referring to the works of the Torah. But that may be a secondary matter, so I will not pursue that now.


I also think your argument doesn't give enough weight to the value of an inheritance, a blessing, and the birthright, which seems to be the main point of contention between Jacob and Esau and central issue in their life as brothers. The fact that Esau's offspring became the servants of Jacob's is very much a personal and individual matter. The hope and expectation of a future inheritance is one thing Jacob and Isaac and the rest of us share with Father Abraham.
My argument is not vulnerable to this critique. Both of our arguments work equally well with your observation. Thus far, I have simply denied that Paul is mounting an argument about "individual election". I will now tell you what I think his case is.

His case is that God has the right to "harden" the vast majority of the Jews to bring salvation to the Gentiles. In other words, the "vessels fitted for destruction" are unbelieving Jews and the "vessels of mercy" are all believers, as a category, not as individuals. In this post, I will not provide further defence (for brevity).

However, my argument is in no way damaged the "birthright" issue. I can legitimately assert that those wind up in the category of the vessels of mercy will indeed get the blessing of an inheritance. I will not argue the point here, but Paul can indeed talk about a "group" being pre-destined to receive an inheritance without asserting that there are specific persons in that group who are thus pre-destined.


You are mistaken to assume that the destiny of Jacob's offspring has nothing to do with his faith or his hope for an inheritance beyond this world.
I have never assumed any such thing. I have never denied that Paul is indeed mounting an argument that leads to a conclusion about pre-destination in relation to eternal destiny. I think that he is indeed doing this very thing.

But this is not an argument that specific individuals are pre-destined - it is rather an argument that a Jew+Gentile category of persons has been pre-destined. You may that it is incoherent for Paul to speak of a category of persons being pre-destined without "naming names". I will explain how this works, if you wish.

In summarry: I am not denying, and have not denied, that Paul is making an argument about "election unto eternal life". I am denying that this election is in relation to specific persons.

BroRog
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:14 PM
I understand, and have acknowledged, that Paul could be mounting a case for individual election.

I do not think that this is the case, but that is a separate discussion.

Even if Paul is mounting such a case, it is patently clear that the "election" in the examples of Jacob / Esau and Pharoah is not an election unto eternal life:

1. In the case of Esau / Jacob, the election is an election that the Edomites will serve the Israelites.

2. In the case of Pharoah the election is an election of Pharoah to resist the exodus.

I am not saying that the fact that these "elections" are not unto an eternal destiny means that Paul is not going to use these examples in support of a later statement about individual election.

There are a raft of other reasons to understand that Paul is not at all concerned, in Romans 9 anyway, with making statements about the election of individuals to some eternal destiny.

Well, if you don't see individual election in those examples then you really have missed the point.

reformedct
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:26 PM
i believe the point is this:

God chooses people/nations to do according to his will as he sees fit. Not based upon them being better than another but simply according to his will

this is undeniable

drew
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:06 PM
Well, if you don't see individual election in those examples then you really have missed the point.
Why do people insist at not taking Paul at his word. He tells us what the election is about in each case.

Let's look at Pharoah;

Let's return to Pharoah. Given this statement from God;

I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here? It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1759a)] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.

Now, I should not have to repeat myself but I will: Paul could indeed be leveraging this specific example of an election - one that has nothing to do with Pharaoh being elected to some eternal destiny - in service of an overall argument about "predestination of individuals to an eternal fate".

But why over-rule what Paul has so clearly stated. In the specific example of Pharoah, the "election" has nothing to do with eternal destinies.

It is not a matter of me "not getting" something, it is a matter of me being willing to accept what Paul is telling me - Pharoah was elected to resist the exodus, not to an eternal fate.

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:17 PM
Why do people insist at not taking Paul at his word. He tells us what the election is about in each case.

Let's look at Pharoah;

Let's return to Pharoah. Given this statement from God;

I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here? It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1759a)] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.

Now, I should not have to repeat myself but I will: Paul could indeed be leveraging this specific example of an election - one that has nothing to do with Pharaoh being elected to some eternal destiny - in service of an overall argument about "predestination of individuals to an eternal fate".

But why over-rule what Paul has so clearly stated. In the specific example of Pharoah, the "election" has nothing to do with eternal destinies.

It is not a matter of me "not getting" something, it is a matter of me being willing to accept what Paul is telling me - Pharoah was elected to resist the exodus, not to an eternal fate.


So in essence to put it into a cliff notes version.

You are saying that God Elects or appoints people for specific purposes is that correct?

drew
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:30 PM
So in essence to put it into a cliff notes version.

You are saying that God Elects or appoints people for specific purposes is that correct?
Yes. In the case of Pharoah, we need to sit back and let Paul tell us what the election here is all about. And it is clearly an election about this present world - that Pharaoh is elected to resist the exodus.

While I happen to believe that God does not elect specific individuals to eternal fates, I am smart enough to know that the example of Pharoah (and of Jacob and Esau) could be part of an argument that leads to a conclusion that God elects individuals to eternal fates. Such an argument could be of the form "Just as God elected Pharaoh to resist the exodus, so God also carries out election in respect to what happens to people when they die".

That argument is certainly plausible. I do not believe it is correct, however.

But we really make a huge mistake if we assert that the elections of Pharoah and Jacob and Esau are about something other than what Paul tells us they are about.

And none of these people are described as being eleceted to an eternal fate. Plus, in each case, we are told what they are elected to.

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:38 PM
We are in agreement on this then :D

Sirus
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:47 AM
i meant we are corrupted by sin in all areas of our being. Our blood is affected by the corruption of sin.

in so saying, at birth we are subject to this corruption of AdamYes, I knew what you meant, but I again, I'll emphasize, BIRTH and ask for scripture. I know about our world. I know about chemicals and diets and the effects on the body, I am asking for scripture that says Adam's sin affected our blood.



our will is corrupted, and our spirits are born seperated from GodHow can a will, which purpose is to drive, be corrupt? Can it no longer drive or is it just being persuaded to go in the wrong direction? :idea:

Is our spirit anymore separated from God than our flesh walking with God in the garden in the cool of the day? Is our spirit anymore separated from God than our mind will and emotions not having unveiled communion and fellowship with God in perfect holiness? No. The spirit is no more separated from God than any other part of our nature. Why the focus on the spirit? Hmmmm? Don't you find it interesting that the body is dying, soul dying, is in scripture, but spiritual death is nowhere to be found? The closest thing we have is the spirit needs to be cleansed from all unrighteousness. Personally, I am not amazed at the level something not found in scripture is so readily taught. Fit's right along side what Jesus and the apostles said would happen to the church.

Furthermore, if separation means severed I've been reading some other bible.



God is Life. So if we are not connected to God, what condition are we in?I hear this often. What is life? Just what do you mean? If you mean the resurrection and world to come then show me Adam ever had it. We know he wasn't glorified and was natural and corruptible. Where was God when Adam and Eve ate the fruit? The kingdom to come says before we think the thought God answers us. People are quick to state Jesus restored what Adam lost but it is very plain that Jesus accomplished what Adam did not and therefore received what Adam never had. Being heirs, we too receive what Adam never had. Romans 5 says -not only so, much more then, not only so, much more, moreover.....



i see you are asking for versus about birth. as i cited the one about being shaped in iniquity, i think you are asking for direct evidence that we are sinners at birth

i dont think there are specific scriptures stating: you are a sinner by birth. however if it says our natures are objects of God's wrath, then that means our nature period. at whatever time of our existence, our nature, apart from a touch of God is sinful. We are born in sin. we are under the bondage of sin and the sinful corruption affects our nature and is in our nature and influences us to use our will to choose evilI’m still talking birth here. As I said in the links I posted a few pages back I have no problem with a sin nature after our past conversation in fulfilling the lust of the flesh according to the course, spirit, and god of this world. That is clearly scriptural. What is not is a sin nature at birth.

You base your argument on Eph 2.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Is this about an infant? No. So what came first, the nature or the walk here? The walk. The walk affected the nature so after a life of sin we are sin-full and by that nature are objects of wrath. You can see that natural course here as well

Jam 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Commentaries that support original sin will tell you the Greek for nature “implies that which has grown in us as the peculiarity of our being, growing with our growth, and strengthening with our strength, as distinguished from that which has been wrought on us by mere external influences” –JFB

Then turn right around, not understanding, and say “what is inherent, not acquired (Job_14:4; Psa_51:5). An incidental proof of the doctrine of original sin.” -JFB

We are born with flesh and it’s desires (inherent) in this carnal world without and intimate relationship with God. That cannot be sin-full because sin has not yet been committed. If you read the links I posted I go into great detail.

This is why it says Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh after establishing that all have sinned and fallen short, because Jesus was just like us but without sin. There is nothing about our birth anywhere in the text.

Don't see it, ok, how about here?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
........
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up
.........
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
.........
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God


What came first, the nature and the knowing or the changing and the vain foolishness? The nature and the knowing! It was sin because it was contrary to their nature and what they knew to be right sometime time previously!!! This is so obvious!
How about this?

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

These use the same Greek word for nature as Ephesians 2 so, if your interpretation of Eph 2 is correct, that our flesh is full of sin having not ever sinned, we have a major contradiction not only here but many places.

BroRog
Dec 23rd 2008, 02:38 PM
Why do people insist at not taking Paul at his word. He tells us what the election is about in each case.

Let's look at Pharoah;

Let's return to Pharoah. Given this statement from God;

I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here? It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1759a)] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.

Now, I should not have to repeat myself but I will: Paul could indeed be leveraging this specific example of an election - one that has nothing to do with Pharaoh being elected to some eternal destiny - in service of an overall argument about "predestination of individuals to an eternal fate".

But why over-rule what Paul has so clearly stated. In the specific example of Pharoah, the "election" has nothing to do with eternal destinies.

It is not a matter of me "not getting" something, it is a matter of me being willing to accept what Paul is telling me - Pharoah was elected to resist the exodus, not to an eternal fate.

The problem with your view is that you don't attempt to follow Paul's train of thought. You aren't letting Paul make the point he wants to make. For this reason, you need to ask whether Pharaoh was elected to eternal "eternal loss" as you put it, or to "resist the liberation of the Jews." The entire question is beside the point. For Paul's purposes, it doesn't matter to what purpose Pharaoh was chosen. The point is, it was God's purpose and not Pharaoh's. If Esau's children serve Jacob's children, it is according to God's purpose and by HIS choice, not the choice of Jacob or Esau.

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

drew
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:16 PM
The problem with your view is that you don't attempt to follow Paul's train of thought. You aren't letting Paul make the point he wants to make. For this reason, you need to ask whether Pharaoh was elected to eternal "eternal loss" as you put it, or to "resist the liberation of the Jews." The entire question is beside the point. For Paul's purposes, it doesn't matter to what purpose Pharaoh was chosen. The point is, it was God's purpose and not Pharaoh's. If Esau's children serve Jacob's children, it is according to God's purpose and by HIS choice, not the choice of Jacob or Esau.

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

None of my posts are susceptible to this ciritique. I have never claimed that what Pharoah was elected to is "the main thing". I have merely corrected the error of people who assert that Pharoah's "election" was an election unto an eternal destiny. Same with Esau and Jacob - I have corrected the same error. And I have never denied that the central theme is that "God is the one who makes these choices".

I have clear to the point of annoyance - these examples could, repeat could, be part of a legitimate argument leading to the claim that God pre-destines individuals to eternal fates.

I do not think this where Paul is heading, but I have been clear that the Pharaoh and Esau / Jacob examples could lead one there.

I have, of course, been equally clear that Paul is indeed mounting an argument about pre-destination to eternal fates. And I have also been clear that I do not believe that this is an argument about pre-destining individuals.

Now if you want to me to explain how Paul could be talking about pre-destination to eternal fates without asserting pre-destination of specific individuals to such eternal fates, I will be happy to fill that case in.

John146
Dec 23rd 2008, 09:31 PM
so calvinsts say, ok, before God made us alive, we were dead because of sins

and if a person is dead they cant choose to make themselves alive

so god is responsible for making us alive, as the scriptures say. Glory to God!

whats so hard to believe about that?

the reason i am convicted that the reformed doctrine is correct is because in it God gets 100% Glory and man gets none

i feel that in other doctrines man gets some credit for choosing to do goodThis is nothing more than a misconception of the opposing view. I believe that man must choose to either repent, accept Christ and surrender their lives to Him or to reject Him and refuse to repent.

Assume for the sake of argument that the publican in the following parable used free will to choose to repent of his sins while the Pharisee chose to believe he was righteous and not a sinner in need of mercy.

Luke 18
9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

If the publican made a free will choice to humble himself and acknowledge to God that he was a sinner, how exactly would he be able to take credit for his own salvation and justification? God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) and that's what the publican did. He just acknowledged that he's a sinner in need of God's mercy. Where is the boasting in that? He is doing the opposite of the Pharisee. The Pharisee is the one doing the boasting here.

The publican humbled himself. Yet your doctrine would try to say that if he was making a free will choice to humble himself and was saved and justified as a result then that would somehow mean he was taking credit for his own salvation. That doesn't make any sense to me.

RogerW
Dec 23rd 2008, 10:21 PM
This is nothing more than a misconception of the opposing view. I believe that man must choose to either repent, accept Christ and surrender their lives to Him or to reject Him and refuse to repent.

Assume for the sake of argument that the publican in the following parable used free will to choose to repent of his sins while the Pharisee chose to believe he was righteous and not a sinner in need of mercy.

Luke 18
9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

If the publican made a free will choice to humble himself and acknowledge to God that he was a sinner, how exactly would he be able to take credit for his own salvation and justification? God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) and that's what the publican did. He just acknowledged that he's a sinner in need of God's mercy. Where is the boasting in that? He is doing the opposite of the Pharisee. The Pharisee is the one doing the boasting here.

The publican humbled himself. Yet your doctrine would try to say that if he was making a free will choice to humble himself and was saved and justified as a result then that would somehow mean he was taking credit for his own salvation. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Hi Eric,

Good to hear from you again. When the publican humbled himself, asking God to be merciful to him, a sinner, was he justified as a result of making a free will choice? I don't see this in the same way you do. The context shows us that Christ was speaking this parable to those who "trusted in themselves that they were righteous."

Lu 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Christ shows these self-righteous men how one, the Pharisee, relied upon his good deeds to prove he was justified. But the other, the publican, recognized he is a sinner in need of God's mercy. He could not have been justified through his free will choice, for then he, like the self-righteous Pharisee would have been relying upon his own good deed (rightly choosing) to be justified. How would making a free will choice to be justified be any different than the Pharisee relying upon his own goodness? In both cases the men would be justified, if that were possible, for something each of them did. Instead the publican recognized himself a sinner and ask God to be merciful to him. The Pharisee, on the other hand, did not see himself as sinful at all. Therefore it is the publican who went away justified, not through free will, but through the mercy and grace of God alone.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 01:42 AM
Yes. In the case of Pharoah, we need to sit back and let Paul tell us what the election here is all about. And it is clearly an election about this present world - that Pharaoh is elected to resist the exodus.

While I happen to believe that God does not elect specific individuals to eternal fates, I am smart enough to know that the example of Pharoah (and of Jacob and Esau) could be part of an argument that leads to a conclusion that God elects individuals to eternal fates. Such an argument could be of the form "Just as God elected Pharaoh to resist the exodus, so God also carries out election in respect to what happens to people when they die".

That argument is certainly plausible. I do not believe it is correct, however.

But we really make a huge mistake if we assert that the elections of Pharoah and Jacob and Esau are about something other than what Paul tells us they are about.

And none of these people are described as being eleceted to an eternal fate. Plus, in each case, we are told what they are elected to.


We are in agreement on this then :D

Pharaoh is not "elect". God used Pharaoh for His specific purpose, but never is Pharoah among the "elect".

Many Blessings,
RW

Veretax
Dec 24th 2008, 12:46 PM
Pharaoh is not "elect". God used Pharaoh for His specific purpose, but never is Pharoah among the "elect".

Many Blessings,
RW


And you are not even understanding what he was saying. He never said that pharoah was part of "The Elect" He said he was elected/appointed by God for the purpose of driving the Israelites out of Egypt. It may be a subtle difference, but that in essence is what he is saying. How on earth you could get that he is saying that makes me wonder if you fully read what he was saying Roger, but I hope that clarifies.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 02:32 PM
Pharaoh is not "elect". God used Pharaoh for His specific purpose, but never is Pharoah among the "elect".
This is beside the point. The reader needs to understand that the word "election" means "choice" - it does not, as a word unto itself, denote "selection unto an eternal destiny". So when Paul writes about God's "purpose in election" in respect to Jacob and Esau, he (Paul) is merely talking about a "choice" that God made.

And in the case of Jacob and Esau, the choice or "election" has nothing to do with the matter of an eternal destiny for either of them. Paul tells us what that election is about - that the Edomites will be subservient to the Israelites.

Romans 9 does not support the doctrine of the election of individual persons unto an eternal destiny. I am more than happy to make that case.

BroRog
Dec 24th 2008, 02:43 PM
None of my posts are susceptible to this ciritique. I have never claimed that what Pharoah was elected to is "the main thing". I have merely corrected the error of people who assert that Pharoah's "election" was an election unto an eternal destiny.

It's not an error. You just don't get it. Sorry to be blunt, but time is short.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 02:48 PM
It's not an error. You just don't get it. Sorry to be blunt, but time is short.
Ok. You need to tell me your reasoning for believing that I am in error. That will be a challenging task since I am only taking Paul at his word, so your refutation will have to apply to him as well. Paul tells us what the election of Pharaoh was about - It was to resist the exodus. He makes this clear by the Old Testament texts he quotes. So to show that I am in error, you need to somehow show that Paul told us "the election in respect to Pharoah was to resist the exodus" but in fact meant us to understand something else when he refers us to OT texts that are clearly about the exodus. That is a tall order, but I am all ears.

I have been crystal clear that I fully understand that the example of God electing Pharoah to resist the exodus could, repeat could, be part of an argument that leads to a conclusion that God elects some people to heaven and others to hell. I do not believe that this is where Paul is heading.

But his point about Pharaoh is that Pharoah was elected to resist the exodus. To say that I am in error on this, you need to make a case that Paul meant something other than what he wrote - since he so clearly tells us that the election was to resist the exodus.

Then we can perhaps resolve the matter. Please do not make vague statements like "You just don't get it".

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 03:55 PM
And you are not even understanding what he was saying. He never said that pharoah was part of "The Elect" He said he was elected/appointed by God for the purpose of driving the Israelites out of Egypt. It may be a subtle difference, but that in essence is what he is saying. How on earth you could get that he is saying that makes me wonder if you fully read what he was saying Roger, but I hope that clarifies.

Greetings Veretax,

Herein lies the problem with what was stated regarding election.

Drew stated: "In the case of Pharoah, we need to sit back and let Paul tell us what the election here is all about. And it is clearly an election about this present world - that Pharaoh is elected to resist the exodus."

The Scripture tells us that God raised Pharaoh up for a specific purpose. That is far different then Pharaoh being "elected" by God. When you search the Scripture to see what elect/elected/election means, you will find it is always a reference to those predestined for eternal life.

1588. eklektos - from 1586; select; by implication, favorite:--chosen, elect.

Pharaoh is NEVER elect or elected, he is simply a vessel whom God will use to accomplish a specific purpose. Similar to the way God used Judas Iscariot. Not "elect(ed)", but used to fulfill God's purpose. The purpose God used Pharaoh btw is not to resist the exodus, but that Pharaoh is raised to power because God will use him to display His power, and that His name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Ro 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

It becomes very confusing when you mix God's purpose for using any man for a certain purpose with God electing certain people from the foundation of the world for eternal life.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 04:05 PM
The Scripture tells us that God raised Pharaoh up for a specific purpose. That is far different then Pharaoh being "elected" by God. When you search the Scripture to see what elect/elected/election means, you will find it is always a reference to those predestined for eternal life.

1588. eklektos - from 1586; select; by implication, favorite:--chosen, elect.
Your own definition shows that the word "elect" does not have the specificity of denoting a selection specifically unto unto eternal life.

Now, you have stated that the word "election" is always a reference to those pre-destined for eternal life. You need to prove this.

But we know that, in Romans 9 itself, we have the word "election" used in a sense other than as a selection unto eternal life.

The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:


The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.


Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?"

So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight.

If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other.

What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election?

The word "election" does not specifically denote selection unto eternal life.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 04:14 PM
When you search the Scripture to see what elect/elected/election means, you will find it is always a reference to those predestined for eternal life.

1588. eklektos - from 1586; select; by implication, favorite:--chosen, elect.

This same greek word is used here in Luke 10:42:

but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

This is not a reference to God electing people to eternal life - it is a statement of a selection made by Mary - so unless Mary is involved in predesting unto eternal life, the verb "elect" is not being used as you assert.

The same greek word is used here in Luke 14:7

And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table, saying to them,

This is not a reference to God electing people to eternal life - it is a statement about a choice made by these guests.

The word "elect" and its cognates do not always denote a reference to God making a choice about who gets what eternal destiny.

As is clearly shown in these examples, the word "elect" simply denotes choice.

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 04:18 PM
This is beside the point. The reader needs to understand that the word "election" means "choice" - it does not, as a word unto itself, denote "selection unto an eternal destiny". So when Paul writes about God's "purpose in election" in respect to Jacob and Esau, he (Paul) is merely talking about a "choice" that God made.

And in the case of Jacob and Esau, the choice or "election" has nothing to do with the matter of an eternal destiny for either of them. Paul tells us what that election is about - that the Edomites will be subservient to the Israelites.

Romans 9 does not support the doctrine of the election of individual persons unto an eternal destiny. I am more than happy to make that case.

Can you show a single place in Scripture (besides Ro 9, where you seem to think elect means simply chosen for a specific purpose) where the word elect/elected/election ever speaks of being chosen to accomplish God's purpose in this life? I ask, because I have searched and wherever elect/elected/election has been used throughout Scripture it is reference to His people who have been predestinated unto eternal life.

But you want me to throw all of the evidence out and agree with you that Ro 9 is not speaking of the purpose of God according to election is not unto salvation of Jacob, by Him that calleth?

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

"Him that calleth" - Re 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen [eklektos], and faithful.

Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

I have seen how you attempt to make this case in the past. You could probably see that Ro 9 is speaking of election unto salvation, and reprobation if you would simply let go of your preconceived doctrine by NT Wright.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 04:19 PM
The purpose God used Pharaoh btw is not to resist the exodus, but that Pharaoh is raised to power because God will use him to display His power, and that His name might be declared throughout all the earth.
The reason why the exodus displays God's power through the earth is obviously because Pharoah resists letting them go. If Pharaoh does not resist and simply says "off you go", there is nothing particularly remarkable in the story - the Hebrews would simply wander off home.

The specific reason why the exodus demonstrates God's power is that the Egyptians resisted their departure - to which God responded, and that the Egyptians went after them - to which God responded.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 04:30 PM
Can you show a single place in Scripture (besides Ro 9, where you seem to think elect means simply chosen for a specific purpose) where the word elect/elected/election ever speaks of being chosen to accomplish God's purpose in this life?
I already have given some examples where the word "election" is used to denote some "choice" made by human beings. This alone makes the relevant point - one cannot simply assume that "election" denotes a choice by God unto eternal life.

Here is another example of the greek word "eklektos" (or its cognates) being used to denote a simple choice that has everything to do with this life and nothing to do with eternal life:

it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,


But you want me to throw all of the evidence out and agree with you that Ro 9 is not speaking of the purpose of God according to election is not unto salvation of Jacob, by Him that calleth?

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
I have given multiple examples that show that the word "election" simply means choice - a choice made by God in some cases, a choice made by humans in others.

So the evidence is strongly against this assertion that "election" is always about God's selection in relation to eternal destinies.


I have seen how you attempt to make this case in the past. You could probably see that Ro 9 is speaking of election unto salvation, and reprobation if you would simply let go of your preconceived doctrine by NT Wright.
This is an entirely inappropriate way to make the argument. Let's discuss the scriptural evidence, and not speculate about who has what pre-conceived notion.

I could make the same claim about you in respect to Calvin, etc.

The evidence is definitive - the word "election" and its cognates are used in a wide range of ways, many having nothing to do with choices made by God.

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 04:30 PM
This same greek word is used here in Luke 10:42:

but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

This is not a reference to God electing people to eternal life - it is a statement of a selection made by Mary - so unless Mary is involved in predesting unto eternal life, the verb "elect" is not being used as you assert.

Not quite the same word Drew. The word translated chosen does not speak of a select favored status.

Chosen Lu 10:42 - 1586 eklegomai - middle voice from 1537 and 3004 (in its primary sense); to select:--make choice, choose (out), chosen.



The same greek word is used here in Luke 14:7

And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table, saying to them,

This is not a reference to God electing people to eternal life - it is a statement about a choice made by these guests.

Same word used in Lu 10:42. Not elect and by implication favored status, simply to select or make a choice.



The word "elect" and its cognates do not always denote a reference to God making a choice about who gets what eternal destiny.

As is clearly shown in these examples, the word "elect" simply denotes choice.

Show me one place in Scripture where elect/elected/election does not speak of those predestined to eternal life. If you can show me something I've missed then we can seek further clarification.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 04:48 PM
You are right about the distinctions between the words. I am not going to spend the time to chase up the technicalities between the relations of all these greek words - at least not now.

I will merely point out that we know that the same root as was used in Romans 9 is used here in Acts:

But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;

This is clearly a choice that does not specifically involve choice about eternal destinies. God is making a choice and it is a choice about Paul's mission in this present world.

So forget all the other examples - this one alone makes the case that the same word "election" (as used in Romans 9) is used elsewhere in a sense that has nothing to do with a choice that God has made unto eternal life.

Therefore, any argument that the very word "election" entails God's choice specifically unto eternal life, cannot work.

Veretax
Dec 24th 2008, 04:49 PM
Greetings Veretax,

Herein lies the problem with what was stated regarding election.

Drew stated: "In the case of Pharoah, we need to sit back and let Paul tell us what the election here is all about. And it is clearly an election about this present world - that Pharaoh is elected to resist the exodus."

The Scripture tells us that God raised Pharaoh up for a specific purpose. That is far different then Pharaoh being "elected" by God. When you search the Scripture to see what elect/elected/election means, you will find it is always a reference to those predestined for eternal life.

1588. eklektos - from 1586; select; by implication, favorite:--chosen, elect.

Pharaoh is NEVER elect or elected, he is simply a vessel whom God will use to accomplish a specific purpose. Similar to the way God used Judas Iscariot. Not "elect(ed)", but used to fulfill God's purpose. The purpose God used Pharaoh btw is not to resist the exodus, but that Pharaoh is raised to power because God will use him to display His power, and that His name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Ro 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

It becomes very confusing when you mix God's purpose for using any man for a certain purpose with God electing certain people from the foundation of the world for eternal life.

Many Blessings,
RW


You've not addressed the word used to raise the up which is:

ejxegeivrw

Definition


to arouse, raise up (from sleep)
to rouse up, stir up, incite

It is only used twice in the bible in that passage in romans, and in the following from 1 Corinthians.

Greek Word: Ejxegeivrw
Transliterated Word: exegeiro
Book to Display: 1 Corinthians
Verse Count: 1
1Co 6:14 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=1co+6:14&version=kjv&showtools=yes) And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

To say that God did not raise up and elect by his power to put Pharaoh in that situation seems a pointless debate to me.


And with that I am stepping out of this discussion because you are posting faster then I can read and respond now :D

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 06:02 PM
Here is another use of the same root word "election" that is used in Romans 9:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, 17 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n17) so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel18 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n18) until the full number19 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n19) of the Gentiles has come in. 11:26 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=26) And so 20 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n20) all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion;
he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
11:27 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=27) And this is my covenant with them, 21 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n21)
when I take away their sins.” 22 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n22)
11:28 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=28) In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers.

By context, the Jew who are described as "elected" here are clearly the Jews who have been hardened and have rejected their Messiah.

Can these Jew be elected to eternal life with God? Clearly not, they have been hardened and are enemies of the gospel. Can these Jews be elected to hell? Clearly not - Paul would not describe them as "dearly loved" in respect to election if this were the case.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 06:04 PM
Hi Eric,

Good to hear from you again. When the publican humbled himself, asking God to be merciful to him, a sinner, was he justified as a result of making a free will choice? I don't see this in the same way you do. The context shows us that Christ was speaking this parable to those who "trusted in themselves that they were righteous."

Lu 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Christ shows these self-righteous men how one, the Pharisee, relied upon his good deeds to prove he was justified. But the other, the publican, recognized he is a sinner in need of God's mercy. He could not have been justified through his free will choice, for then he, like the self-righteous Pharisee would have been relying upon his own good deed (rightly choosing) to be justified. How would making a free will choice to be justified be any different than the Pharisee relying upon his own goodness?The difference between the behavior of the publican and the Pharisee couldn't be more clear. The publican humbled himself and the Pharisee exalted himself. How you conclude that if the publican made the free will choice to humble himself then it means he would be acting no different than the Pharisee is beyond me.


In both cases the men would be justified, if that were possible, for something each of them did.Does it not say that he who humbles himself will be exalted? To humble yourself is to do something. What really matters here is their hearts. The publican wasn't trying to earn justification. He was truly sorry in his heart for being a sinner and asked God for mercy. He didn't have any ulterior motives of trying to justify himself by his actions like the Pharisee did. You are looking at this in completely the wrong way.


Instead the publican recognized himself a sinner and ask God to be merciful to him. The Pharisee, on the other hand, did not see himself as sinful at all. Therefore it is the publican who went away justified, not through free will, but through the mercy and grace of God alone. Where does it say that? He was justified for humbling himself and acknowledging that he was a sinner in need of God's mercy. It doesn't say that God did that for him.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 06:09 PM
Can you show a single place in Scripture (besides Ro 9, where you seem to think elect means simply chosen for a specific purpose) where the word elect/elected/election ever speaks of being chosen to accomplish God's purpose in this life? I ask, because I have searched and wherever elect/elected/election has been used throughout Scripture it is reference to His people who have been predestinated unto eternal life. John 6
70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 06:12 PM
You are right about the distinctions between the words. I am not going to spend the time to chase up the technicalities between the relations of all these greek words - at least not now.

I will merely point out that we know that the same root as was used in Romans 9 is used here in Acts:

But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;

This is clearly a choice that does not specifically involve choice about eternal destinies. God is making a choice and it is a choice about Paul's mission in this present world.

Which is exactly why the word is translated "chosen" and not "elect". While it is true that Paul is among the elect of God, i.e. select favored status, God is not speaking of Paul's eternal election in this passage. In this passage in Acts, God is showing Paul as a "chosen vessel"..."to bear MY name before the Gentiles".

Ac 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Ac 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

"Chosen" in Acts 9:15 comes from 1589 ekloge - from 1586; (divine) selection (abstractly or concretely):--chosen, election.



So forget all the other examples - this one alone makes the case that the same word "election" (as used in Romans 9) is used elsewhere in a sense that has nothing to do with a choice that God has made unto eternal life.

Therefore, any argument that the very word "election" entails God's choice specifically unto eternal life, cannot work.

You still have not dealt with how the word elect/elected/election means select; by implication favorite status, everywhere else in Scripture. Nor have you shown "election" in Ro 9 is of Pharoah.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 06:14 PM
You've not addressed the word used to raise the up which is:

ejxegeivrw


Definition

to arouse, raise up (from sleep)
to rouse up, stir up, incite
It is only used twice in the bible in that passage in romans, and in the following from 1 Corinthians.

Greek Word: Ejxegeivrw
Transliterated Word: exegeiro
Book to Display: 1 Corinthians
Verse Count: 1
1Co 6:14 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=1co+6:14&version=kjv&showtools=yes) And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

To say that God did not raise up and elect by his power to put Pharaoh in that situation seems a pointless debate to me.


And with that I am stepping out of this discussion because you are posting faster then I can read and respond now :D

God raised up Pharaoh, He did not "elect" (select favored status) Pharaoh.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 06:16 PM
[/color]

Not quite the same word Drew. The word translated chosen does not speak of a select favored status.

Chosen Lu 10:42 - 1586 eklegomai - middle voice from 1537 and 3004 (in its primary sense); to select:--make choice, choose (out), chosen.The same word is used here:

Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's (eklektos) sake, whom he hath chosen (eklegomai), he hath shortened the days.

Since "elect" and "chosen" mean the same thing in this verse, you can't just dismiss the verses where eklegomai is not used in the sense of election to eternal life.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 06:33 PM
Which is exactly why the word is translated "chosen" and not "elect".
This is not a valid argument. We have already dispatched any argument that the Greek root "eklectos" (or however that is spelled) necessarily denotes "election unto eternal life", since God's "eklectos" in Acts 9:15 is demonstrably not a choice in respect to Paul's eternal fate.

The fact that the same Greek root is rendered as "election" in Romans 9, and "choice" in Acts 9 in no way establishes that the use of the term "election" in Romans 9 is about an election unto eternal life. You need to make further arguments to establish that case.

Let's say that I agree with you that all cases of "eklectos", which are translated as "election" (not "choice") indeed have this sense of "preferred status". This is not enough to conclude that the Romans 9 usage is specifically about preferred choice in respect to eternal life. It could be "preferred status" in respect to something else. Getting eternal life is not the only way "preferred status" can be conferred on a person.

And, in fact, in Romans 9 Paul tells us what the "preferred status" of Jacob is - it is that his descendents - the Israelites - will dominate the Edomites.

Besides, your argument does not work for other reasons. Look how the NASB renders "eklectos" in Romans 9:11:

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:11;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28167A))God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

And here is how the YLT translates "eklectos"

(for they being not yet born, neither having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to choice, might remain; not of works, but of Him who is calling,) it was said to her

Since you have been arguing all along that Romans 9:11 is about "election to eternal life", you cannot turn around and say that a translations descision to render "eklectos" as "choice" in Acts 9:15 distinguishes the sense of how the word "eklectos" is used in these two verses.

In Acts 9:15, the author uses the same word that is also rendered as "choice" in Romans 9:11 - at least in two reputable translations. You thereofore have no grounds to leverage a distinction about how the word eklectos is translated in these two different contexts.

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 06:53 PM
Here is another use of the same root word "election" that is used in Romans 9:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, 17 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n17) so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel18 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n18) until the full number19 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n19) of the Gentiles has come in. 11:26 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=26) And so 20 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n20) all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion;
he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
11:27 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=27) And this is my covenant with them, 21 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n21)
when I take away their sins.” 22 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=11#n22)
11:28 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=11&verse=28) In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers.

By context, the Jew who are described as "elected" here are clearly the Jews who have been hardened and have rejected their Messiah.

Can these Jew be elected to eternal life with God? Clearly not, they have been hardened and are enemies of the gospel. Can these Jews be elected to hell? Clearly not - Paul would not describe them as "dearly loved" in respect to election if this were the case.

Drew examine the election in 11:28 in connection with the remnant according to election of grace here:

Ro 11:2 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,
Ro 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Ro 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Ro 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

It is not the Jews who have been hardened who as touching election are beloved for the fathers' sake. It is the remnant according to the election of grace. These are the people (remnant according to election of grace) which God foreknows, and has not cast away.

Ro 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 06:55 PM
John 6
70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Hi Eric,

Does this speak of being chosen for a specific task in this world, or an eternal destiny? The twelve were chosen to be apostles.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 06:55 PM
You still have not dealt with how the word elect/elected/election means select; by implication favorite status, everywhere else in Scripture. Nor have you shown "election" in Ro 9 is of Pharoah.
I will grant that "eklectos" does indeed entails "favoured status". But this does not establish anything in respect to election to the status of eternal life with God, since there are many other modes by which God can confer "favoured status".

My point about Pharaoh is that he was chosen by God for something. And what he was chosen for was to resist the exodus. There is no evidence at all in the actual text that he was chosen to go to hell - you have to read that in.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 07:00 PM
Hi Eric,

Does this speak of being chosen for a specific task in this world, or an eternal destiny? The twelve were chosen to be apostles.

Many Blessings,
RWIt doesn't speak of being chosen to eternal life. That was my point.

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 07:07 PM
The same word is used here:

Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's (eklektos) sake, whom he hath chosen (eklegomai), he hath shortened the days.

Since "elect" and "chosen" mean the same thing in this verse, you can't just dismiss the verses where eklegomai is not used in the sense of election to eternal life.

Why would I do that? Christ is making the point that if He had not shortened the days for those whom He had chosen, the elect; select by implication favorite status, then no flesh should be saved. These are chosen, called and faithful; elect according to grace.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 07:10 PM
It doesn't speak of being chosen to eternal life. That was my point.

I would think we could asertain that by the use of the word "chosen" instead of elect.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 07:12 PM
Drew examine the election in 11:28 in connection with the remnant according to election of grace here:
.
.
.
It is not the Jews who have been hardened who as touching election are beloved for the fathers' sake. It is the remnant according to the election of grace. These are the people (remnant according to election of grace) which God foreknows, and has not cast away.

Ro 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
This is simply not possible. How can a remnant "elected by grace" be enemies of the gospel?:

25For (AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AL))I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this (AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AM))mystery--so that you will not be (AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AN))wise in your own estimation--that a partial (AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AO))hardening has happened to Israel until the (AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AP))fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"(AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28236AQ))THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"(AR (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28237AR))THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
(AS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28237AS))WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." 28From the standpoint of the gospel they are (AT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28238AT))enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for (AU (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28238AU))the sake of the fathers;

In verse 25, Paul is talking about Jews who have been hardened - clearly not the remnant chosen by grace. In verse 28, Paul refers to a people who are enemies "for your sake". It is these people that are elected.

Who are the people that are elected and are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles? Obviously these are the Jews described as follows:

And David says,
"(N (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28219N))LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP,
AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM.
10"(O (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28220O))LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT,
AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER."
11(P (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221P))I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? (Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221Q))May it never be! But by their transgression (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221R))salvation has come to the Gentiles, to (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221S))make them jealous

Paul is clearly talking about hardened Jews whose "transgressions" benefit the Gentile.

If your argument is right, he is saying (in verse 280 that, instead, that some other group - the remnant selected by grace - benefits the Gentile

12Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their (T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28222T))fulfillment be!

Again, it is clear that it is the hardened Jew - the Jew who is an "enemy of the gospel" - that benefits the Gentile. So why do you have Paul saying in verse 28 that the "remant selected by grace" - an entirely different group - is the group the brings benefit to the Gentile?

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you (AF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28230AF))stand by your faith

Yet again, Paul underscores that it is the unbelieving Jew that benefitst the Gentile. If you are correct, then Paul is saying that a different group "benefits" the Gentile in verse 28.

The evidence is overwhelming. Unless Paul has become deeply confused, the Jews in 11:28 are unbelieving Jews - not the remnant. As is so clear in Romans 9 through 11, God has "elected" the unbelieving Jew to be hardened for the sake of the Gentile.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 07:13 PM
I will grant that "eklectos" does indeed entails "favoured status". But this does not establish anything in respect to election to the status of eternal life with God, since there are many other modes by which God can confer "favoured status".

My point about Pharaoh is that he was chosen by God for something. And what he was chosen for was to resist the exodus. There is no evidence at all in the actual text that he was chosen to go to hell - you have to read that in.Exactly. And it also doesn't say anything about Jacob being chosen to salvation or Esau not being chosen to salvation. The context is clear regarding what election means in terms of Jacob and Esau. The elder would serve the younger. We know from Genesis 25:23 that they each represented nations: Israel and Edom, respectively. And one nation, Israel, would be stronger than the other, Edom. Romans 9 simply cannot be used to try to support the notion that individuals are elected to salvation while being given no choice in the matter.

Israel was elected to receive the covenants and the giving of the law and the promises and special blessings by God. God chose/elected to use Israel as His headquarters on the earth, so to speak.

Rom 9
3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

People from other nations could try to complain, but "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." (Rom 9:14). God can do what He wants and no one can question it. Thankfully, it just so happens that He chose to offer His Son as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Therefore, salvation is offered to every person in the world, but many choose to reject it. Many are called, but few are chosen (Matt 20:16, Matt 22:14).

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 07:16 PM
I would think we could asertain that by the use of the word "chosen" instead of elect.
As has already been shown, the word "eklectos" is rendered as "choice" in Romans 9:11 in both the NASB and the Young's Literal. Since you hold 9:11 to be about "election to eternal life", I do not see how such an argument can work.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 07:26 PM
This is simply not possible. How can a remnant "elected by grace" be enemies of the gospel?:

25For (AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AL))I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this (AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AM))mystery--so that you will not be (AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AN))wise in your own estimation--that a partial (AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AO))hardening has happened to Israel until the (AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28235AP))fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"(AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28236AQ))THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"(AR (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28237AR))THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
(AS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28237AS))WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." 28From the standpoint of the gospel they are (AT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28238AT))enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for (AU (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28238AU))the sake of the fathers;

In verse 25, Paul is talking about Jews who have been hardened - clearly not the remnant chosen by grace. In verse 28, Paul refers to a people who are enemies "for your sake". It is these people that are elected.

Who are the people that are elected and are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles? Obviously these are the Jews described as follows:

And David says,
"(N (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28219N))LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP,
AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM.
10"(O (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28220O))LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT,
AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER."
11(P (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221P))I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? (Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221Q))May it never be! But by their transgression (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221R))salvation has come to the Gentiles, to (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28221S))make them jealous

Paul is clearly talking about hardened Jews whose "transgressions" benefit the Gentile.

If your argument is right, he is saying (in verse 280 that, instead, that some other group - the remnant selected by grace - benefits the Gentile

12Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their (T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28222T))fulfillment be!

Again, it is clear that it is the hardened Jew - the Jew who is an "enemy of the gospel" - that benefits the Gentile. So why do you have Paul saying in verse 28 that the "remant selected by grace" - an entirely different group - is the group the brings benefit to the Gentile?

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you (AF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=49#cen-NASB-28230AF))stand by your faith

Yet again, Paul underscores that it is the unbelieving Jew that benefitst the Gentile. If you are correct, then Paul is saying that a different group "benefits" the Gentile in verse 28.

The evidence is overwhelming. Unless Paul has become deeply confused, the Jews in 11:28 are unbelieving Jews - not the remnant. As is so clear in Romans 9 through 11, God has "elected" the unbelieving Jew to be hardened for the sake of the Gentile.I can't agree with you here, Drew. You are missing the context.

Romans 11
1I 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. 2God 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,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

The election in Romans 11 only refers to believers. The remnant of believers. They are differentiated from those who are blinded.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Unbelievers are not beloved, Drew. The blinded ones are the enemies while the election are the beloved. The Greek word for beloved is "agapētos" (Strong's G27). That word is always used to refer to believers and never to unbelievers.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 07:32 PM
I would think we could asertain that by the use of the word "chosen" instead of elect.

Many Blessings,
RWChosen can mean the same thing as elect as we can see in Mark 13:20, so I don't see your point. The word eklektos does not have to mean elected to eternal life any more than the word eklegomai does, even though eklegomai sometimes does mean that, as in the case of Mark 13:20.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 07:35 PM
Why would I do that? Christ is making the point that if He had not shortened the days for those whom He had chosen, the elect; select by implication favorite status, then no flesh should be saved. These are chosen, called and faithful; elect according to grace.

Many Blessings,
RWIn Mark 13:20, eklogomai means the same as elect, which refers to the saved. In other verses like John 6:71 it does not mean that because it includes Judas Iscariot. There is no basis for insisting that either eklektos or eklogomai have to mean the exact same thing every time they're used.

BroRog
Dec 24th 2008, 07:42 PM
Ok. You need to tell me your reasoning for believing that I am in error.

Actually, I already have. I believe this is the fourth time. Maybe you don't remember.


That will be a challenging task since I am only taking Paul at his word, so your refutation will have to apply to him as well.

The problem is, you are not taking Paul at his word.

Let me take a short cut and show you where your view jumps the track.

A. For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

B. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

The section I labeled "A" above, comes from the book of Exodus in which we read, for the first time, that God reserves the right to save any individual among the sons of Jacob, even as his covenant is with the entire nation. Paul concludes from this that God's merciful act to save an individual does not depend on what that man does or what he wants. If God decides to save a man, that man has no choice in the matter. Period.

The section I labeled "B" above also comes from the book of Exodus. And Paul concludes that God hardens the heart of anybody he wants.

Putting these both together we have a complete picture of how a man gets saved. God chooses whom to save. He has mercy on those he wants to save, and it doesn't matter what the man wants or does. And for those he doesn't want to save, he hardens their hearts.

What Israel (the country) is seeking, it has not obtained, but those (individuals) who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, Eyes to see not and ears to hear not, Down to this very day."

The scripture above comes toward the end of his argument, which has built on the premise that God has mercy on whom he desires and hardens whom he desires. Since the topic subject is a question of why God has not granted mercy to the entire family line of Jacob, Paul is building his case for God's sovereignty over whom to save. According to Scripture, God can give anyone a spirit of stupor at any time and any place.

Your point that God chose Pharaoh to resist the Exodus misses the point entirely. In order for God to have Pharaoh resist the Exodus God hardened his heart. That's the fact that supports Paul's contention that God hardens whomever he wants to harden. The purpose it served is beside the point. The fact that God hardens hearts in the first place is the scriptural fact that supports Paul's argument.


So to show that I am in error, you need to somehow show that Paul told us "the election in respect to Pharoah was to resist the exodus" but in fact meant us to understand something else when he refers us to OT texts that are clearly about the exodus. That is a tall order, but I am all ears.

If you want to be helpful, cut to the chase and avoid getting bogged down in fruitless issues that are beside the point. If we keep Paul's argument in mind we will not waist time debating these sideline issues as if they were they mattered. For Paul's purposes, the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart is enough. The purpose it served is beside the point.


I have been crystal clear that I fully understand that the example of God electing Pharoah to resist the exodus could, repeat could, be part of an argument that leads to a conclusion that God elects some people to heaven and others to hell. I do not believe that this is where Paul is heading.

I know. You don't know where Paul is heading. That's why you are making such a big deal over nothing.

RogerW
Dec 24th 2008, 08:43 PM
Chosen can mean the same thing as elect as we can see in Mark 13:20, so I don't see your point. The word eklektos does not have to mean elected to eternal life any more than the word eklegomai does, even though eklegomai sometimes does mean that, as in the case of Mark 13:20.

Hi Eric,

But we are arguing over the word being translated "elect". We know chosen can be used as being chosen for God's purpose in this world, but my point speaks specifically to each verse eklektos (specifically) has been translated "elect". We also find the Greek eklektos translated "chosen." Again, whether translated "elect" or "chosen" throughout the NT it refers to those foreknown by God, being predestined to eternal life. Can you show me anywhere in the NT where the specific Greek word eklektos has been translated "elect" or "chosen" and it does not refer those predestined to eternal life?

The problem I encounter in Ro 9 and 11 is that the word translated "election/chosen" does not come specifically from the Greek word eklektos, but from the Greek word ekloge which means (divine) selection (abstractly or concretely):--chosen, election. Does this divine selection also mean those predestined for eternal life?

Ekloge is translated in the NT seven times; once chosen, and six times election. Three of these times are found in Ro 11 where you have stated you believe it refers to believers. It is translated "chosen" in Acts 9:15, and speaks of Paul being a chosen vessel to bear the Lord's name before the Gentiles.

In 2Pe 1:10,11 - "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Since here election is linked with calling, its fair to say it is speaking of those predestined to eternal life.

Also in 1Th 1:4 - "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God." When we cross reference this verse with a similar verse in 2Th 2:13, we find "brethren beloved of the Lord" are those whom "God hath from the beginning chosen to salvation."

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

That leaves only one more place in Ro 9:11 where the Greek word ekloge is translated "election." Here too it is qualified by "of him that calleth."

Who are those that are with the Lord? Those who are called, chosen, and faithful.

Re 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 08:44 PM
The election in Romans 11 only refers to believers. The remnant of believers. They are differentiated from those who are blinded.
I do not see how this is possible. I think we actually all agree that there are blinded Jews and there are the remnant.

Which group is being talked about in Romans 11:28?

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice (election) they are beloved for the sake of the fathers

Clearly the two "they"s are the same group. And clearly it is this group that is being described as having "elected" or chosen.

What is another characeristic of this group? They are enemies of the gospel. So how can this possibly be the remnant - how are the remnant in any sense enemies of the gospel? On the other hand, the unbelieving Jews are enemies of the gospel - they deny that Jesus is the Messiah, one of the central componentes of the gospel.

What else is said about this "they" that are elected? Their enmity to the gospel benefits the Gentile ("for your sake"). And who has Paul repeatedly described as being a group the benefits the Gentiles? Clearly unbelieving Jews - the broken off branches.

I do not see any possible argument that those "elected" in verse 28 are the remnant.

It is true that Paul identifies the remnant and differentiates them from the hardened Jews. But what he says about the elected group in verse 28 is inconsistent with that group being the remnant.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 09:03 PM
Let me take a short cut and show you where your view jumps the track.

A. For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

B. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

The section I labeled "A" above, comes from the book of Exodus in which we read, for the first time, that God reserves the right to save any individual among the sons of Jacob, even as his covenant is with the entire nation. Paul concludes from this that God's merciful act to save an individual does not depend on what that man does or what he wants. If God decides to save a man, that man has no choice in the matter. Period.
This is not the correct way to interpret what Paul is saying in Romans 9. Even if it is true that somewhere in Exodus, God makes a commitment to save (in the "eternal destiny sense") any individual among the sons of Jacob, Paul makes it clear what his reference is, and it is not this. It is instead deliverance to the promised land. Paul quotes from Exodus 33:19. Here is the text leading up to, and including that verse.

14And He said, "(W (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2488W))My presence shall go with you, and (X (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2488X))I will give you rest."

15Then he said to Him, "(Y (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2489Y))If Your presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here.
16"For how then can it be known that I have found favor in Your sight, I and Your people? Is it not by Your going with us, so that (Z (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2490Z))we, I and Your people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?"
17The LORD said to Moses, "I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; (AA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2491AA))for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name."
18(AB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2492AB))Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!" 19And He said, "(AC (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2493AC))I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and (AD (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&version=49#cen-NASB-2493AD))I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."

This is not about selective salvation - it is about God showing mercy to the Jews in their trip to the promised land.

In verse 14, we have a clear reference to God promising his presence during that trip.

In verse 16, we have Moses beseeching God to lead all the Jews in order to distinguish the nation of Israel from other nations. This is clearly an exodus issue - there is no issue here of some Jews being "elected" to salvation and others not - Paul is talking about corporate Israel and asking God to mark them out against other nations. So the "selection" at issue here is clearly not "one son of Jacob" versus another - it is the marking out of the entire nation of Israel as will be accomplished by God delivering them into the promised land.

And in verse 17, God grants Moses' request. So in verse 19, we clearly have God asserting that he will grant his favour on the nation of Israel by delivering them to the holy land.

And Paul knows what he is doing in Romans 9 when he quotes from this account. And what he goes on to say about Pharoah coheres perfectly with such a reading.

I will address point B in the next post. But with respect to point A, when we chase up the specifics of Paul's Old Testament allusion, we see that the issue on the table is delivery of corporate Israel, not selective salvation of some and not others. God is merciful to the nation of Israel in the context of their travels and struggles. The issue of selective salvation of individuals is nowhere in sight in the material that Paul directs us to.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 09:14 PM
B. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

The section I labeled "B" above also comes from the book of Exodus. And Paul concludes that God hardens the heart of anybody he wants.
Yes, but what is the hardening for? Eternal destiny? Clearly not. Once more, if we chase up the actual references Paul sends us to, we see that the issue is the exodus, not individual salvation. The text from Romans 9 quotes from is this:

And what text is Paul quoting here. It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1759a)] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.

reformedct
Dec 24th 2008, 09:26 PM
Romans 9 is a passage that is about God choosing to use people for His purposes. God raised Pharoah up however as we read the account in the OT God hardened Pharaoe by using patience and giving many oppurtunities to repent

Pharoah had already hardened his heart against God. God did not force him to hardened his heart. Pharoah already had a hard heart, and God raised him up as an example. God put pharaoes rebellious heart on display to make an example of him. But God did not hit the "hard heart" switch in Pharoes heart, God simply used plagues and such to magnify the hardness of Pharoes heart, to put his heart on center stage for all to see how wicked and violent it was against God

However God does sovreignly choose certain people to be blessed such as Jacob. Jacob was a trickster and a wimp but God decreed he would use Him. Israel was chosen by the love of God not because they were better

so i believe it is safe to say in Romans 9 it is about God using people for His purposes, regardless of their will or human exertion

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 09:27 PM
The scripture above comes toward the end of his argument, which has built on the premise that God has mercy on whom he desires and hardens whom he desires.
Agree, and even though the Esau / Jacob and Moses / Pharoah "elections" are demonstrably about things other than ethernal destiny - we do not need to conclude this, Paul tells us - I do agree that Paul is heading in the direction of making a statement about God's choice in relation to eternal destinies.

But it is not a choice about individuals - as per the entire chapter 9 to 11 the real point Paul is making is about how the hardening of nation of Israel (most of it, anyway) has brought salvation to the Gentiles. Paul is working at the levels of nations - he is not making an argument about God choosing this person and not that.


Since the topic subject is a question of why God has not granted mercy to the entire family line of Jacob, Paul is building his case for God's sovereignty over whom to save. According to Scripture, God can give anyone a spirit of stupor at any time and any place.
This is not what the text actually says. Again, Paul is treating groups here - his reference to stupors and hardenings are in relation to most of corporate Israel. The argument is through and through one of corporate entities - hardened Jews vs in-grafted Gentiles - not individuals.


Your point that God chose Pharaoh to resist the Exodus misses the point entirely. In order for God to have Pharaoh resist the Exodus God hardened his heart. That's the fact that supports Paul's contention that God hardens whomever he wants to harden. The purpose it served is beside the point. The fact that God hardens hearts in the first place is the scriptural fact that supports Paul's argument.
My point is fine. I agree that God hardened Pharoah's heart. And this was done for a specific reason - to resist the exodus. The hardening of of Pharoah's heart works perfectly well in service of the real argument that Paul is making - God has the right to choose to harden national Israel in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles.

Paul is not talking about God making a choice to save this person and not that. He is telling his readers that God has hardened the Jews in order to bring salvation to all the world.

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 09:30 PM
More reason to see that the major theme of Romans 9 is how the destiny of national Israel and the destiny of the church ("true Israel") have been woven together in the purposes of God (and that "individual election" is not on Paul's mind at this point):

In Romans 3, Paul raises a number of questions and he raises them very specifically in the context of national Israel and the covenant. In the very first 2 verses, we have an introductory question, focussing on the Jew (national Israel) and her covenant role of being a blessing to the world:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

To be entrusted with the words of God is to be given those words for the sake of someone else. This is clearly a reference to the covenantal role given to Israel to be a blessing to the world.

Now look at how Paul introduces Romans 9 - with the very same issue of national Israel. And here he elaborates on answers to the question of 3:1 that he has already given in 3:2:

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised

These are, of course , the advantages of being a member of national Israel.

Now back to chapter 3, we get a more nuanced set of questions. These questions are about the more complex and specific issue of how the faithlessness of the Jew actually, and admittedly strangely, allows God’s own righteousness to shine forth, and whether the Jew should be blamed in such a context:

5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?

7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner”?

Again, Paul is referring to the Jew here – in verse 7, he is talking about a hypothetical Jew raising the questions. The context demands this - chapter 3 is clearly focused on Israel and Israel only in the first 8 verses. It is only in verse 9 that Paul aligns himself with the Gentile, for rhetorical purposes, and asks "Is the Gentile any better?"


Make no mistake: these are questions about God's fairness in the way he has treated Israel. Why people forget that the first part of chapter 3 is about Israel is a mystery to me. Paul is still talking about the Jew in the above - he is not talking "humanity in general". We know this for two reasons: First, he has clearly introduced the chapter with an Israelfocus and there is no reason to believe he has generalized beyond this without notice. Second, it is only later (verse 9 and following) that he expands his treatment to include the Gentile:

Now back to chapter 9:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28156ffen-NIV-28156f)] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth”.

It is clear that this is the very same complex question – is God unjust when he condemns the unrighteousness of someone even that very unrighteousness is used by God to promote God’s glory and purpose. And even though the question here is framed in respect to Pharaoh, the overall rhetorical structure of Romans 9 drives us inexorably to the conclusion that Paul is working up to making a similar point about Israel.

And later in Romans 9 we get a more refined answer to the same highly specific questions of chapters 3 and 9. Here is where the Pharaoh-specificity of the preceding text is replaced with a very strong implication of an Israel focus (in respect to the vessels of destruction):

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

This is the answer to the Romans 3 question. God has hardened Israel - remember the potter and his pot. Why has God done this? In order to allow God to fulfil the Abrahamic covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world. And this is precisely why the answer to the question of God’s faithfulness in the following Romans 3 question is “no”:

Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?

Remember that Romans 3 starts with a covenantal focus. So the “faithfulness” here is not some kind of “general” faithfulness – it denotes God’s faithfulness to the covenant. How has God been faithful to the covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world? The potter account of Romans 9 is the answer – He has hardened her, just like a clay pot in hardened in the purposes of the potter.

And this is underscored in Romans 11 where context is clear that the “they” is Israel:

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

Paul is an exceedingly sophisticated writer. In chapter 3, he raises questions about God's treatment of Israel. In chapter 9, he gives answers to these question. Please note how specific one of the chapter 3 questions is - how does the unrighteousness of the Jew increase God's righteousness?. And the potter account is the perfect answer. For some reason, God has "molded Israel for destruction" - effectively elected her to be the place where the sin of the world is heaped together and brought to full flower of expression. This is how the "falsehood" or stumble of the Jew enhances God's glory because God has used this stumble to bring salvation to the world.

Some may question the sense of God molding Israel to be a vessel to bear the sin of the world. Well, I trust you know how I will respond - God does precisely the same thing to Jesus, making Him the vessel into which the sins of the world are collected and borne. Israel is acting as the “set-up” man for Jesus – being hardened by being the place sin is heaped up and accumulated before it is transferred to her representative Messiah where it is then condemned.

Now, if the potter stuff in Romans 9 is really about the pre-destined lost and the pre-destined saved, this entire, rich, subtle, and interconnected argument woven through Romans simply falls apart. Does that really seem plausible to you?

drew
Dec 24th 2008, 10:37 PM
Just to be fair, I have thus more or less only asserted what I believe is the nature of the pre-destination argument that I think Paul is mounting - that it is at the level of nations and groups, not individuals. There have been a lot of posts counter-arguing the specifics of what other posters are saying.

To be fair, both "sides" need to make a case about the specific nature of the pre-destination argument that is being mounted. Some might think that it is sufficient to demonstrate that what Paul writes is merely consistent with one's view.

That is, of course, incorrect. One needs to show that one's position is better than other positions that can also be made to work with the text. So just so there is no misunderstanding, I do not want you guys to think that I think I have "made my case" about what Paul's real point is. I gave a little bit of the argument in my recent post about the connection to Romans 3.

Of course, I think the opposing case has not been made either.

BroRog
Dec 25th 2008, 03:32 PM
Yes, but what is the hardening for? Eternal destiny? Clearly not.

Again, your question is beside the point. And when I say it's beside the point I mean God's purpose for hardening Pharaoh's heart doesn't enter into Paul's argument. All that matters to Paul's argument is the fact that God hardened his heart. He could have hardened Pharaoh against eating Chocolate, and Paul would still have the evidence he needs to make HIS point that God hardens whomever he wants.


How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.


No, you are begging us to divert our attention away from the main issue because, for some reason, you think it really matters why God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But the purpose for hardening Pharaoh's heart is irrelevant. The FACT that God hardens hearts in the first place is the main issue here.

drew
Dec 25th 2008, 04:09 PM
Again, your question is beside the point. And when I say it's beside the point I mean God's purpose for hardening Pharaoh's heart doesn't enter into Paul's argument. All that matters to Paul's argument is the fact that God hardened his heart. He could have hardened Pharaoh against eating Chocolate, and Paul would still have the evidence he needs to make HIS point that God hardens whomever he wants.
I have never disputed this as the reader will know. I am not sure what your thinking is here, but I know that I have been repeatedly clear about this. On multiple occasions, I have been crystal clear that Paul might be using these examples to mount a case about the election of individuals to an ultimate destination. I think that his case is a different one than this.

I have simply pointed the error of believing that in the example of Pharaoh, and in the example of Jacob and Esau, Paul is not making a statement about individual election. There are many people - perhaps not you - who think otherwise. And when they do so, they are trumping Paul. And that is what I am responding to.

I suspect that you believe that these are examples of hardening in support of an argument that God pre-destines some to heaven and some to hell. Fine.

I, on the hand, believe that these are examples of hardening to support an argument that God has "elected" national Israel, as a corporate entity, to be hardened so that that salvation can be extended to the Gentiles - as a corporate entity.

Both positions are plausible and we both need to support our respective cases.

But I am not missing the point - I have repeatedly shown that my argument does not fall under your critique (above).

BroRog
Dec 25th 2008, 04:38 PM
I have never disputed this as the reader will know. I am not sure what your thinking is here, but I know that I have been repeatedly clear about this. On multiple occasions, I have been crystal clear that Paul might be using these examples to mount a case about the election of individuals to an ultimate destination. I think that his case is a different one than this.

I have simply pointed the error of believing that in the example of Pharaoh, and in the example of Jacob and Esau, Paul is not making a statement about individual election. There are many people - perhaps not you - who think otherwise. And when they do so, they are trumping Paul. And that is what I am responding to.

I suspect that you believe that these are examples of hardening in support of an argument that God pre-destines some to heaven and some to hell. Fine.

I, on the hand, believe that these are examples of hardening to support an argument that God has "elected" national Israel, as a corporate entity, to be hardened so that that salvation can be extended to the Gentiles - as a corporate entity.

Both positions are plausible and we both need to support our respective cases.

But I am not missing the point - I have repeatedly shown that my argument does not fall under your critique (above).

Your position is not plausible because it relies on tangential information that doesn't enter into the argument.

drew
Dec 25th 2008, 04:59 PM
Your position is not plausible because it relies on tangential information that doesn't enter into the argument.
This is merely an assertion - please substantiate. On what grounds is my position implausible? It seems pretty plausible to me. We have examples of God hardening selectively and showing mercy selectively. This establishes that God does indeed exhibit "selective" mercy. But how does that work against my position that God is making an argument that God has been "selectively" merciful toward the "Jew+Gentile" church and has hardened national Israel? That is what I think Paul's basic point is.

Now how is that implausible? You appear to be incorrectly assuming that my argument is grounded on, or based on, the specifics of the Pharaoh / Moses and Jacob / Esau examples. And yet I have been explicitly clear that these examples do not bear the weight of my argument, although they do contribute to it, but in a manner that I have yet to explain.

reformedct
Dec 25th 2008, 05:09 PM
Maybe this verse will help out a bit, it was said by King Nebuchadnezzar after he (seemingly against his will) lost his right mind and started eating grass like an animal. After his mind returned to him (seemingly according to Gods will not his), this is what he said:

Daniel 4:34-35

34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,
for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”




so its obvious God does what he wills, and it is also obvious that God can override the "will" of a human being by means of forcing him to do something like eat grass.




i guess the issue is how does this God relate to our salvation. very interesting

drew
Dec 25th 2008, 05:50 PM
i guess the issue is how does this God relate to our salvation. very interesting
I agree. I think that no one here is disputing the assertion that God can and does "manipulate" human beings for His purposes. Even though there are many related things swirling about, I believe the question at issue is whether he indeed "elects" people to ultimate salvation.

The fact that he elected Pharoah to resist the exodus and the Edomites to be subservient to the Israelites does not imply that He elects individuals to eternal salvation. One needs to deploy other arguments to make such a case. And likewise, these examples do not imply that He does not elect individuals. Once more, additional arguments need to be made.

BroRog
Dec 25th 2008, 05:55 PM
This is merely an assertion - please substantiate. I already did, yesterday about 12:42


On what grounds is my position implausible?

I just said why. Your position relies on tangential information that doesn't enter into Paul's argument.


But how does that work against my position that God is making an argument that God has been "selectively" merciful toward the "Jew+Gentile" church and has hardened national Israel?


Your emphasis on tangential information belies the fact that you don't understand how Paul's point about Pharaoh works to prove his assertion that entrance into the "Israel" of 9:6 is by God's choice.

dljc
Dec 25th 2008, 06:04 PM
I'm curious, with predestination in mind. How are these verses explained?


1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

drew
Dec 25th 2008, 06:13 PM
I already did, yesterday about 12:42
Please be more specific by providing a post number - I do not know what post you are talking about.


I just said why. Your position relies on tangential information that doesn't enter into Paul's argument.
This is a vague assertion with no substantiation. Please substantiate your assertion.


Your emphasis on tangential information belies the fact that you don't understand how Paul's point about Pharaoh works to prove his assertion that entrance into the "Israel" of 9:6 is by God's choice.
You need to substantiate this claim - how do you know that this is Paul's point?

reformedct
Dec 25th 2008, 08:49 PM
I'm curious, with predestination in mind. How are these verses explained?


1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.


i may be wrong but i believe these verses are talking about the effeciency of Jesus sacrifice. Any one in the world can come to Jesus and have their sins forgiven. It is Gods will that none should perish. However obviously that will not happen.

This is a very interesting point as well. If God wills all men to be saved, and if it is God who ultimately saves a person, why does God desire and command everyone to repent?

It sounds strange. Im not here to question God because I am the one with the confusion not Him. but i think God commands everyone to repent so that they dont have an excuse. For example on the last day some might say, "well you didnt care about me so i didnt repent", and He would say, it is written, i desire for all men to come to repentance.

very mind boggling. one of the few areas of my faith where things are very cloudy. We know that the new birth is by the Spirit, not by human will or exertion though


hmmmm.. i guess the question is, does a person living in a state of spiritual death(not a literally dead spirit but a spirit seperated from God), an enemy of God, have in and of himself, apart from the work of the Spirit, to desire God? Can a spiritually dead person call out to God? An enemy of God choose to love God, apart from a work of God?

im not asking these to prove a point i honestly am searching for answers on this subject:confused

Prophet Daniel
Dec 25th 2008, 09:14 PM
The elect will be saved in this life. If the firstfruits are holy then the whole lump will be ...

The kingdom of heaven is like a woman that took 3measures of dough and put leaven to it...

They are enemies for the gospel sake and beloved for the father's sake. Put yeast to the remmnant and then the enemies will become holy in the age to come ...

I will cut short in rigtheousness ... make a short work on the earth.

Every knee will bow by me every tongue will swear
in heaven
on earth
under the earth
Phil2:10-11
Isa 45:23
Rom14:11

BCF
Dec 25th 2008, 11:34 PM
The elect will be saved in this life. If the firstfruits are holy then the whole lump will be ...

The kingdom of heaven is like a woman that took 3measures of dough and put leaven to it...

They are enemies for the gospel sake and beloved for the father's sake. Put yeast to the remmnant and then the enemies will become holy in the age to come ...

I will cut short in rigtheousness ... make a short work on the earth.

Every knee will bow by me every tongue will swear
in heaven
on earth
under the earth
Phil2:10-11
Isa 45:23
Rom14:11

Ok......I wasn't going too.....but I can't help myself:lol:

Who are the elect, elected, election, or chosen, (or what ever is being used here) that God is saving?

reformedct
Dec 25th 2008, 11:48 PM
this is why although reformed, i do not claim to be a hardcore calvinist. i dont believe calvinism or arminianism contain the fullness o understanding the scriptures. Each side has their own pile of scriptures and ingnores the other sides pile lol

it seems that there is a sense in which all men are offered to repent and believe.

here is an interesting verse that seems to combine both the "elect" and mankind as a whole:

1st Timothy 4:10

"...because we have hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO BELEIVE

there is a sense in which Christ is indeed the Savior of ALL PEOPLE, because the Bible says so.

Let me try to reconcile this. It seems that those who reject the gospel do so because of their "free will", while those who are saved recieve the gospel by some sort of "free will" in which the Spirit is involved. very tricky.

Who takes the first step? in a sense God has already taken the first step by sacrificing His Son. But specifically, in regards to grace, faith, and new spiritual birth, who takes the first step? i know the Spirits job is to convict the WORLD of sin, but also the spirit is birthed by Spirit? hmmm

as far as election goes....it is very hard to determine. We must somehow reconcile human responsibility and Gods sovreignty, because both aspects are taught in Scripture

it is currently my interpretation that:

the unsaved reject the gospel by their own will, they cannot blame God.

the saved, though they repent and believe, cannot blame themselves for their salvation, but must instead give all glory to God

what a mystery we have on our hands.

BCF
Dec 26th 2008, 12:34 AM
reformedct


it seems that there is a sense in which all men are offered to repent and believe.

Agreed


1st Timothy 4:10

"...because we have hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO BELEIVE

there is a sense in which Christ is indeed the Savior of ALL PEOPLE, because the Bible says so.

Christ is the Savior for all man kind. There is no way to the Father but through Christ for anybody.


Let me try to reconcile this. It seems that those who reject the gospel do so because of their "free will", while those who are saved recieve the gospel by some sort of "free will" in which the Spirit is involved. very tricky.

God did give us free will. When God created us He did not make us puppets on a string.


Who takes the first step? in a sense God has already taken the first step by sacrificing His Son. But specifically, in regards to grace, faith, and new spiritual birth, who takes the first step? i know the Spirits job is to convict the WORLD of sin, but also the spirit is birthed by Spirit? hmmm

God took the first step by providing a way with the death of His Son. All that we need to do is accept the way that is provided. But we need to accept it with our Hearts , Mind, and Souls. Not with just Our Minds.


as far as election goes....it is very hard to determine. We must somehow reconcile human responsibility and Gods sovreignty, because both aspects are taught in Scripture

How so?


the saved, though they repent and believe, cannot blame themselves for their salvation, but must instead give all glory to God

Agreed


what a mystery we have on our hands.

Oh, I don't know. Although I will admit that we will never know everything of God's Word until He sends for us someday. But a mystery......last I look Gods does not cause confusion. So I highly doubt that it would be a mystery.

God Bless,

Dave

Sirus
Dec 26th 2008, 01:20 AM
The elect will be saved in this life. If the firstfruits are holy then the whole lump will be ...

The kingdom of heaven is like a woman that took 3measures of dough and put leaven to it...

They are enemies for the gospel sake and beloved for the father's sake. Put yeast to the remmnant and then the enemies will become holy in the age to come ...

I will cut short in rigtheousness ... make a short work on the earth.

Every knee will bow by me every tongue will swear
in heaven
on earth
under the earth
Phil2:10-11
Isa 45:23
Rom14:11I can't help myself either.....

what does corruption in the kingdom of heaven have to do with the elect? That's the opposite of the chronology of the text that shows the word of the kingdom vastly being rejected then corrupted and the kingdom inhabited by devils.

BroRog
Dec 26th 2008, 06:28 PM
Please be more specific by providing a post number - I do not know what post you are talking about.


This is a vague assertion with no substantiation. Please substantiate your assertion.


You need to substantiate this claim - how do you know that this is Paul's point?

Like I said, we have had this conversation several times before. This time, however, I'm going to take another road to get there.

Paul begins the chapter by pointing out that the "adoption as sons" belongs to the Jewish people. Many Bible students just skip right over the first five verses of Romans 9 and miss this key point. The question is, why didn't God give it to them?

Many will say some of the Jews did not receive what God promised to them because they rejected the offer, or they rejected God, or they rejected Jesus. They place the blame on the individual, suggesting that the "adoption as sons" is freely offered to everyone and only those who want it will get it. In their mind it's simply a matter of a freewill choice to take it or leave it.

But Paul knows nothing of our modern view of freewill as if a person's choices are simple mathematical probabilities, not based on what the person is like inside. But the Bible indicates the locus of our choice is in our heart. Our choices reveal the disposition of our heart.

David:

How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

In this Psalm 32 we see that an honesty that comes from the inner man is a fundamental reason why God grants forgiveness to a man. The Lord does not impute iniquity to a man who has a spirit free from deceit.

Jesus:

But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Jesus and David agree. The key to living and persevering in faith is to have an honest and good heart.

David:

Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

In this Psalm 51, not only do we see the emphasis David places on the presence of truth in the innermost being, a steadfast spirit, a willing spirit, and a broken and contrite heart, but we see the cry of his desire that God renew his spirit and not take his Holy Spirit away. So then, we see David's expectation that God might give him a restored spirit and the kind of heart attitude that leads to salvation. In David's mind, this is something God can do for a person who asks for it.

In conclusion, we can see from David's expectation that the prerequisite clean, pure, honest, good heart is a matter of God's creative activity. "Create in me a clean heart", he asks. The acts of God are acts of creation. For David to get his clean heart God will create it for him. The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart, but if a person is to have a broken and contrite heart in fact, it will be God creating it in the first place.

God through Jeremiah:

24:7 I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.

31:33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

32:39-40 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

Jeremiah speaks of a Day in which God will create hearts to know him, to obey him, to fear him. It isn't a matter of broadcasting a "take it or leave it offer" to the nation of Israel to grant salvation to those who want it. And if a man just so happens to be lucky enough to have the right heart he will find salvation from God. On the contrary, Jeremiah speaks of a time when God will create the heart condition necessary to please him. GOD will give them the heart to know him. GOD will write his law on their hearts. GOD will give them one heart and one way. GOD will but the fear of him in their hearts.

Paul:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Paul acknowledges the prophetic word from God, especially the word through Jeremiah, that the adoption as sons, the covenants, and the promises all BELONG to his kinsmen. Therefore, if God has promised his kinsmen to open their hearts, to soften their hearts, to give them a heart of fear and obedience, to put his spirit within them, then why hasn't he?

Contrary to our picture of how salvation works, i.e. a preacher broadcasts a message of salvation to all who want it, the Bible's picture of salvation for the Jews is a matter of God's creative act. In our picture, God is simply waiting from heaven for us to get smart enough or humble enough to repent and accept his free offer of salvation. But Jeremiah's picture of salvation is that God preemptively creates in a person a heart that will love him, will fear him, will know him.

So then, we are mistaken to assume or deduce that the Jews did not respond to the Gospel because they had a stubborn heart. Yes, they had a stubborn heart, but the promise of God was to soften the heart. Granted that those with a stubborn heart will not respond to the gospel message, we see that it is God that removes the stubborn heart to replace it with a softened heart. God is the one who harden hearts and he is the one who soften hearts. Consequently, whether a man comes to salvation or not is strictly a matter for God to decide.

So if the promises belong to Israel, and God has promised to soften all the hearts in Israel, why didn't he?

THAT is the question at issue in Romans 9 through 11. How is it that God made a promise to Israel, but not every son of Jacob is the beneficiary of that promise?

Has God's word failed?

RogerW
Dec 26th 2008, 06:55 PM
Like I said, we have had this conversation several times before. This time, however, I'm going to take another road to get there.

Paul begins the chapter by pointing out that the "adoption as sons" belongs to the Jewish people. Many Bible students just skip right over the first five verses of Romans 9 and miss this key point. The question is, why didn't God give it to them?

Many will say some of the Jews did not receive what God promised to them because they rejected the offer, or they rejected God, or they rejected Jesus. They place the blame on the individual, suggesting that the "adoption as sons" is freely offered to everyone and only those who want it will get it. In their mind it's simply a matter of a freewill choice to take it or leave it.

But Paul knows nothing of our modern view of freewill as if a person's choices are simple mathematical probabilities, not based on what the person is like inside. But the Bible indicates the locus of our choice is in our heart. Our choices reveal the disposition of our heart.

David:

How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

In this Psalm 32 we see that an honesty that comes from the inner man is a fundamental reason why God grants forgiveness to a man. The Lord does not impute iniquity to a man who has a spirit free from deceit.

Jesus:

But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Jesus and David agree. The key to living and persevering in faith is to have an honest and good heart.

David:

Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

In this Psalm 51, not only do we see the emphasis David places on the presence of truth in the innermost being, a steadfast spirit, a willing spirit, and a broken and contrite heart, but we see the cry of his desire that God renew his spirit and not take his Holy Spirit away. So then, we see David's expectation that God might give him a restored spirit and the kind of heart attitude that leads to salvation. In David's mind, this is something God can do for a person who asks for it.

In conclusion, we can see from David's expectation that the prerequisite clean, pure, honest, good heart is a matter of God's creative activity. "Create in me a clean heart", he asks. The acts of God are acts of creation. For David to get his clean heart God will create it for him. The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart, but if a person is to have a broken and contrite heart in fact, it will be God creating it in the first place.

God through Jeremiah:

24:7 I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.

31:33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

32:39-40 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

Jeremiah speaks of a Day in which God will create hearts to know him, to obey him, to fear him. It isn't a matter of broadcasting a "take it or leave it offer" to the nation of Israel to grant salvation to those who want it. And if a man just so happens to be lucky enough to have the right heart he will find salvation from God. On the contrary, Jeremiah speaks of a time when God will create the heart condition necessary to please him. GOD will give them the heart to know him. GOD will write his law on their hearts. GOD will give them one heart and one way. GOD will but the fear of him in their hearts.

Paul:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Paul acknowledges the prophetic word from God, especially the word through Jeremiah, that the adoption as sons, the covenants, and the promises all BELONG to his kinsmen. Therefore, if God has promised his kinsmen to open their hearts, to soften their hearts, to give them a heart of fear and obedience, to put his spirit within them, then why hasn't he?

Contrary to our picture of how salvation works, i.e. a preacher broadcasts a message of salvation to all who want it, the Bible's picture of salvation for the Jews is a matter of God's creative act. In our picture, God is simply waiting from heaven for us to get smart enough or humble enough to repent and accept his free offer of salvation. But Jeremiah's picture of salvation is that God preemptively creates in a person a heart that will love him, will fear him, will know him.

So then, we are mistaken to assume or deduce that the Jews did not respond to the Gospel because they had a stubborn heart. Yes, they had a stubborn heart, but the promise of God was to soften the heart. Granted that those with a stubborn heart will not respond to the gospel message, we see that it is God that removes the stubborn heart to replace it with a softened heart. God is the one who harden hearts and he is the one who soften hearts. Consequently, whether a man comes to salvation or not is strictly a matter for God to decide.

So if the promises belong to Israel, and God has promised to soften all the hearts in Israel, why didn't he?

THAT is the question at issue in Romans 9 through 11. How is it that God made a promise to Israel, but not every son of Jacob is the beneficiary of that promise?

Has God's word failed?

Greetings BroRog,

A beautiful promise indeed! God's Word fail??? May it never be! For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, but in Isaac shall My seed be called. So then, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated! So all Israel shall be saved...not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles...the Israel of God!

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 28th 2008, 12:34 AM
Paul begins the chapter by pointing out that the "adoption as sons" belongs to the Jewish people. Many Bible students just skip right over the first five verses of Romans 9 and miss this key point. The question is, why didn't God give it to them?
I agree with this and this is entirely consistent with the belief that predestination of individuals is not at issue in Romans 9.


But Paul knows nothing of our modern view of freewill as if a person's choices are simple mathematical probabilities, not based on what the person is like inside. But the Bible indicates the locus of our choice is in our heart. Our choices reveal the disposition of our heart.
I do not agree that Paul denies free will - I have yet to hear a convincing scriptural case for this. True, many of our "choices" are not really free insofar as they do indeed reflect our inner consitutions.

But I see nothing in the scriptures that undermines the notion that while man is indeed "slave" to his nature, he retains a faculty that understands that he is a slave and is otherwise free to accept God's help in changing that nature.

Consider this analogy: Let's say that my brain has been damaged in such a way that it is impossible for me to understand general relativity. Does this mean I cannot recognize and become aware of my incapacity in regard to general relativity? Obviously not. Blind people cannot see, but that does not mean they are not aware that sighted people have a capability that gives new information about the world.

Suppose a surgeon comes along and says "We have this new operation that can fix your brain so that you can understand general relativity". Can I understand what he is claiming? Of course. Just like a blind person can understand that a certain operation might give him sight, even if he does not know what sight be like once he gets it (he has been blind from birth).

I trust the analogy is clear here. Unless it can be argued that we do not the capacity to make accurate judgements about ourselves and accept "a gift" that fixes our inner nature, I do not see how man has no free will.

Another analogy: Is an alchoholic going to drink because of his alchoholic nature? Yes indeed. Can an alchoholic understand that he possesses a nature that irresistably drives him to the bottle? Of course he can. People do it all the time. Can such an alchoholic freely accept therapy? Yes again.

Man retains the ability to understand his state - that his choices spring from his nature and he can freely accept help from God.

What is the scriptural evidence against such a position?

drew
Dec 28th 2008, 12:47 AM
On the contrary, Jeremiah speaks of a time when God will create the heart condition necessary to please him.
But all these texts are entirely consistent with the position that man can indeed recognize his fallen state and accept God's transforming help. You need to rule this possibility out to make your case.


So then, we are mistaken to assume or deduce that the Jews did not respond to the Gospel because they had a stubborn heart. Yes, they had a stubborn heart, but the promise of God was to soften the heart.
Paul is quite clear - God has hardened the hearts of the majority of Jews:

God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28203d)] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.

And there are plenty of other texts - the vessels fitted for destruction are these very Jews whom God has hardened. But, as I believe you are saying, there is hope that Jews will ultimately find salvation.

BroRog
Dec 28th 2008, 12:53 AM
I agree with this and this is entirely consistent with the belief that predestination of individuals is not at issue in Romans 9.


I do not agree that Paul denies free will - I have yet to hear a convincing scriptural case for this. True, many of our "choices" are not really free insofar as they do indeed reflect our inner consitutions.

But I see nothing in the scriptures that undermines the notion that while man is indeed "slave" to his nature, he retains a faculty that understands that he is a slave and is otherwise free to accept God's help in changing that nature.

Consider this analogy: Let's say that my brain has been damaged in such a way that it is impossible for me to understand general relativity. Does this mean I cannot recognize and become aware of my incapacity in regard to general relativity? Obviously not. Blind people cannot see, but that does not mean they are not aware that sighted people have a capability that gives new information about the world.

Suppose a surgeon comes along and says "We have this new operation that can fix your brain so that you can understand general relativity". Can I understand what he is claiming? Of course. Just like a blind person can understand that a certain operation might give him sight, even if he does not know what sight be like once he gets it (he has been blind from birth).

I trust the analogy is clear here. Unless it can be argued that we do not the capacity to make accurate judgements about ourselves and accept "a gift" that fixes our inner nature, I do not see how man has no free will.

Another analogy: Is an alchoholic going to drink because of his alchoholic nature? Yes indeed. Can an alchoholic understand that he possesses a nature that irresistably drives him to the bottle? Of course he can. People do it all the time. Can such an alchoholic freely accept therapy? Yes again.

Man retains the ability to understand his state - that his choices spring from his nature and he can freely accept help from God.

What is the scriptural evidence against such a position?

The same hermeneutics we use to understand the Bible is a similar hermeneutics we use to understand each other.

Now when I said that some folks view freewill as mechanical, and not derived from our heart, I was NOT denying free will. And I was not suggesting that Paul denied freewill either. So I don't know where you got this idea that I suggested Paul didn't affirm the freewill of man.

I wonder if you took the time to read the rest of my post, or when you came to the sentence you quoted, you stopped to dismiss the rest?

drew
Dec 28th 2008, 12:55 AM
A beautiful promise indeed! God's Word fail??? May it never be! For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, but in Isaac shall My seed be called. So then, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated! So all Israel shall be saved...not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles...the Israel of God![
If you are asserting that Paul is claiming that God's hate for Esau means specifically that God has elected Esau to eternal loss, then you are going beyond what Paul says the election was about and adding something else. Same thing with Jacob. That is actually not illegitimate, but one needs to make an actual case as to why we should understand that Paul is making a statement about the eternal destinies of Esau. Jacob, and Pharoah.

It is important to understand that statement that Paul nevers says that Esau, Jacob, or Pharoah were elected to any eternal destiny. These examples are clearly examples of God "electing" these people to specific roles in this present world.

Paul is actually silent on the matter of the eternal fates of these people. The problem is that some people construct the following erroneous argument:

1. We know from the potter metaphor that God has elected some individual persons to heaven and some to hell.

2. Therefore, we can conclude that the "examples" leading up to this - Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh - must be examples of such pre-destination.

This is a faulty argument precisely because point 1 is not self-evidently true. It is not at all obvious that the potter metaphor deals with the election of individuals to an eternal destiny. Unless that case is made, one cannot "read election to an eternal destiny" back into the Pharaoh, and Jacob / Esau examples.

Sirus
Dec 28th 2008, 01:05 AM
Paul begins the chapter by pointing out that the "adoption as sons" belongs to the Jewish people. Many Bible students just skip right over the first five verses of Romans 9 and miss this key point. The question is, why didn't God give it to them?He did. It says even now there is a remnant. As a whole? It says they sought it not by faith. It was and is still given to the Jew first. There's nothing unusual about this. It fits perfectly all scripture that says there's only a remnant and few verses many etc....

The adoption is not something that is complete until the redemption of our body, though we have been notified we are adopted.

BroRog
Dec 28th 2008, 01:06 AM
If you are asserting that Paul is claiming that God's hate for Esau means specifically that God has elected Esau to eternal loss, then you are going beyond what Paul says the election was about and adding something else. Same thing with Jacob. That is actually not illegitimate, but one needs to make an actual case as to why we should understand that Paul is making a statement about the eternal destinies of Esau. Jacob, and Pharoah.

It is important to understand that statement that Paul nevers says that Esau, Jacob, or Pharoah were elected to any eternal destiny. These examples are clearly examples of God "electing" these people to specific roles in this present world.

Paul is actually silent on the matter of the eternal fates of these people. The problem is that some people construct the following erroneous argument:

1. We know from the potter metaphor that God has elected some individual persons to heaven and some to hell.

2. Therefore, we can conclude that the "examples" leading up to this - Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh - must be examples of such pre-destination.

This is a faulty argument precisely because point 1 is not self-evidently true. It is not at all obvious that the potter metaphor deals with the election of individuals to an eternal destiny. Unless that case is made, one cannot "read election to an eternal destiny" back into the Pharaoh, and Jacob / Esau examples.


Drew, did God harden Pharaoh's heart or not?

drew
Dec 28th 2008, 01:07 AM
Now when I said that some folks view freewill as mechanical, and not derived from our heart, I was NOT denying free will. And I was not suggesting that Paul denied freewill either. So I don't know where you got this idea that I suggested Paul didn't affirm the freewill of man.
I read your post quite carefully but I understand why you might say this. I suspect that my post is still a valid critique of your position, but we need some more clarification about what you mean by free will.

I will give you my guess as to what you mean by free will in unregenerate man. If my characterization of your position is correct - you tell me if it is, please - then I think my critique stands.

I suspect that you think that man has free will to make choices within the constraints imposed upon him by his nature.

So I suspect you will say that fallen man is free to "choose to do this sin instread of that". That is indeed a form of freedom. But, and this is the key point, I suspect that you will deny that man can come to understand his own nature and then freely act to accept a remedy for that nature.

I suspect that you will say that such freedom is not available to the unregenerate man. If you hold such a view, then I would put forward my posts as a challenge to such a view.

BroRog
Dec 28th 2008, 01:08 AM
He did. It says even now there is a remnant. As a whole? It says they sought it not by faith. There's nothing unusual about this. It fits perfectly all scripture that says there's only a remnant and few verses many etc....

Actually, Sirus he didn't -- not yet.

drew
Dec 28th 2008, 01:09 AM
Drew, did God harden Pharaoh's heart or not?
Yes. God hardened Pharoah's heart. But since Paul tells that the hardening was to resist the exodus, we have no reason, unless other arguments are brought to bear, that God's hardening of Pharoah's heart was unto eternal loss.

BroRog
Dec 28th 2008, 01:55 AM
Yes. God hardened Pharoah's heart. But since Paul tells that the hardening was to resist the exodus, we have no reason, unless other arguments are brought to bear, that God's hardening of Pharoah's heart was unto eternal loss.

Actually, we don't need to know why Pharaoh's heart was hardened. The purpose of the hardening is not relevant to his argument. All that matters to Paul's argument is the fact that, indeed, God does such a thing.

Sirus
Dec 28th 2008, 07:15 AM
Actually, Sirus he didn't -- not yet.Well, I told you what scripture says;
-He did. It says even now there is a remnant
-As a whole? It says they sought it not by faith

If you care to dispute that you must use scripture. “he didn’t – not yet” doesn’t cut it.

Just because you jump back to the poetic language of Psalm’s to conclude total depravity doesn't make it so.
Jeremiah 24’s conversion from idolatry through the chastening effect of captivity in Babylon is not God flicking a switch in the heart anymore than God using signs and wonders is flicking a switch in the heart of Pharaoh. It plainly says in v7 “for they shall return unto me with their whole heart” –Repentance!

But you say –God gives it – then they return
This is like saying “he harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Exo 7:13) then in the next verse “Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.” Well, if God flicked the switch then Pharaoh didn’t refuse, God did. God refused himself! No! A kingdom divided against itself will not stand –if Satan cast out Satan- if God refuses God
You can read as well as anyone that God said he would harden his heart by multiplying his signs and wonders and that when God did the signs and wonders Pharaoh harden his heart.

God didn’t blind the Jews so they wouldn’t believe so he could bring the Gentiles in. That’s not what it says. God blinded them because they didn’t believe and granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles. Big difference!

Hebrews 8 and 10 quotes Jeremiah 31. It is the new covenant.

You say;
"Yes, they had a stubborn heart, but the promise of God was to soften the heart."
"So if the promises belong to Israel, and God has promised to soften all the hearts in Israel, why didn't he?"
"we see that it is God that removes the stubborn heart to replace it with a softened heart. God is the one who harden hearts and he is the one who soften hearts."

I can’t say I am amazed with this. Despite scripture saying they didn’t attain righteousness because they sought it not by faith but by the works of the law you pretend it is because God flicked a switch. Yep, that’ll give God glory! Yes indeed, what a master puppet maker!

ALL Scripture consistently shows who’s hearts he hardens and who’s hearts he shows mercy to.
Rom 2:5-11 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart………….

BroRog
Dec 28th 2008, 08:11 AM
Well, I told you what scripture says;
-He did. It says even now there is a remnant
-As a whole? It says they sought it not by faith

Just as Jesus and the Father taught us, we can not judge by appearances. Today there is a small remnant in the nation of Israel that believes. Someday, it will be all of them.


Just because you jump back to the poetic language of Psalm’s to conclude total depravity doesn't make it so.


My references to the Psalms were not to prove total depravity but that God is willing to forgive the sins of those who have a humble and contrite heart.

Not sure why you mentioned that the Psalms were poetry. Do you not believe the Psalms are inspired scripture?


Jeremiah 24’s conversion from idolatry through the chastening effect of captivity in Babylon is not God flicking a switch in the heart anymore than God using signs and wonders is flicking a switch in the heart of Pharaoh.


Not sure what you mean by "chastening effect." The text actually makes God the subject of the conversion of the hearts. However he does it, it's him doing it.


But you say –God gives it – then they return


That's what the text says. Why not look it up?


This is like saying “he harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Exo 7:13) then in the next verse “Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.” Well, if God flicked the switch then Pharaoh didn’t refuse, God did. God refused himself! No! A kingdom divided against itself will not stand –if Satan cast out Satan- if God refuses God.



Paul is the one who said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, which becomes the basis for his assertion that God can harden whomever he wants. I know this is difficult to accept. But I'm not the one making these claims. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, is making them.


You can read as well as anyone that God said he would harden his heart by multiplying his signs and wonders and that when God did the signs and wonders Pharaoh harden his heart.


It doesn't matter how God hardened Pharaoh's heart or why he did it. All that matters to Paul's argument is the fact that God did it, which simply proves that God hardens the hearts of those whom he wants to harden.


God didn’t blind the Jews so they wouldn’t believe so he could bring the Gentiles in. That’s not what it says. God blinded them because they didn’t believe and granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles. Big difference!


Again, for Paul to make a valid argument, he must show from scripture that God's election is by HIS choice, and for HIS purposes. If God didn't harden the hearts of the Israelites, then Paul's argument doesn't hold water.

You say;
"Yes, they had a stubborn heart, but the promise of God was to soften the heart."
"So if the promises belong to Israel, and God has promised to soften all the hearts in Israel, why didn't he?"
"we see that it is God that removes the stubborn heart to replace it with a softened heart. God is the one who harden hearts and he is the one who soften hearts."


I can’t say I am amazed with this. Despite scripture saying they didn’t attain righteousness because they sought it not by faith but by the works of the law you pretend it is because God flicked a switch.

When sorting out the many true things in the Bible we often must maintain the distinction between phenomenological language and and passage that describe what is really going on. Yes, Paul says that Israel did not attain to righteousness because they did not seek it by faith. That is true on the one hand. But Paul also says that God hardened their heart and gave them a spirit of stupor. The question is, as Bible students, how do we put those two true facts together into a complete whole?

I believe one statement tells us what happened, and the other statement tells us how it came to be.


Yep, that’ll give God glory! Yes indeed, what a master puppet maker!

I know, you are trying to defend God's honor and his glory. And that is a good thing. But your view unintentionally reduces God's honor and glory.

RogerW
Dec 28th 2008, 08:14 PM
Just as Jesus and the Father taught us, we can not judge by appearances. Today there is a small remnant in the nation of Israel that believes. Someday, it will be all of them.

BroRog, is it your argument that God has predestinated every ethnic Jew for salvation, therefore someday God will save every single Jew? Do you believe Ro 11:26,27 is reference to ethnic Jews, and not the true Israel or the Israel of God? "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Many Blessings,
RW

The Parson
Dec 28th 2008, 08:20 PM
Gee, I thought the title of this thread said "Quick Question". Did your question get answered???

RogerW
Dec 28th 2008, 08:42 PM
Well, I told you what scripture says;
-He did. It says even now there is a remnant
-As a whole? It says they sought it not by faith

If you care to dispute that you must use scripture. “he didn’t – not yet” doesn’t cut it.

I cannot find a single passage of Scripture to support the opinion that God has predestinated every ethnic Jew for salvation. You are correct in that Scripture affirms only the remnant of ethnic Israel (individually) will be saved according to election of grace.




God didn’t blind the Jews so they wouldn’t believe so he could bring the Gentiles in. That’s not what it says. God blinded them because they didn’t believe and granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles. Big difference!

Ethnic Israel sought salvation by works, but only the remnant received grace according to election. The rest were blinded because they sought salvation through works rather than through faith. Therefore God gave them eyes that they could not see, and ears that they could not hear, and through their fall salvation went unto the whole world (Gentiles). Salvation of the Gentiles was a means to make them (ethnic Jews) jealous, so that some of them too might be saved through the proclamation of the gospel by the believing Gentiles.



I can’t say I am amazed with this. Despite scripture saying they didn’t attain righteousness because they sought it not by faith but by the works of the law you pretend it is because God flicked a switch. Yep, that’ll give God glory! Yes indeed, what a master puppet maker!

I agree! But then we must also ask why God elected only a remnant from ethnic Israel according to grace? If God had predestined the whole nation, and reserved them all according to election of grace, where would that leave the rest of the human race? God specifically tells us that it is through their hardening that salvation has gone unto the Gentiles. He also tells us that some of them (natural branches) were cut off that which is wild by nature might be graffed in contrary to nature.



ALL Scripture consistently shows who’s hearts he hardens and who’s hearts he shows mercy to.
Rom 2:5-11 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart………….

Yes, but let's not forget that it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance. It is not through some goodness they possess apart from His goodness. If God shows no mercy, then the heart will remain hardened.

Ro 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Many blessings,
RW

Sirus
Dec 29th 2008, 12:06 AM
I cannot find a single passage of Scripture to support the opinion that God has predestinated every ethnic Jew for salvation. You are correct in that Scripture affirms only the remnant of ethnic Israel (individually) will be saved according to election of grace. They use 'then all Israel will be saved' but like you I still see that as a remnant.




Ethnic Israel sought salvation by works, but only the remnant received grace according to election. The rest were blinded because they sought salvation through works rather than through faith. Therefore God gave them eyes that they could not see, and ears that they could not hear, and through their fall salvation went unto the whole world (Gentiles). Salvation of the Gentiles was a means to make them (ethnic Jews) jealous, so that some of them too might be saved through the proclamation of the gospel by the believing Gentiles.
Seems you are agreeing with me on this point. When Jesus said it was fulfilled that the prophet said, they see not seeing and hear not hearing, was when the disciples asked why he spoke to them in parables. Jesus said so they would not be converted and their sins not be forgiven. Jesus knowing their hearts spoke in parables. He didn't speak in parables to manipulate the heart.




I agree! But then we must also ask why God elected only a remnant from ethnic Israel according to grace?Here is where we differ. I cannot view election apart from God's foreknowledge. So it's not that God arbitrarily elected only a remnant, it's that only a remnant sought righteousness which is by faith in Christ -by grace through faith, and not by works.



If God had predestined the whole nation, and reserved them all according to election of grace, where would that leave the rest of the human race?You are combining election and predestination. God predestined the elect. So to your question

'If God had elected the whole nation, and reserved them all according to election of grace, where would that leave the rest of the human race? '

Then the whole nation would have sought righteousness which is by faith in Christ -by grace through faith, and not by works. Then either they would have taken the gospel to the world, or more appropriately 'the war' would have begun and the earthly reign would have ensued, and we wouldn't be here discussing this and probably never existed, which is why it's a rhetorical question of impossibility.



God specifically tells us that it is through their hardening that salvation has gone unto the Gentiles. He also tells us that some of them (natural branches) were cut off that which is wild by nature might be graffed in contrary to nature.Yes but it does not say God flicked a switch and hardened them. They didn't believe and so God -concluded- them all in unbelief and gave the kingdom of God to a nation bearing fruit. The prophecies are that it will not end this way and God will again show his mighty right arm of salvation for Israel.



Yes, but let's not forget that it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance. It is not through some goodness they possess apart from His goodness. If God shows no mercy, then the heart will remain hardened.

Ro 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?Amen, Amen! We all harden our heart to some degree, true. The cross of Christ draws us to the Son who is in the Father, they are one. In this the Father has shown mercy to all. He even preached the gospel to the spirits in prison from the days of Noah!

Rom 11:32-36 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.

"This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. "
"They said therefore unto him, What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?"
"For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
........
I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
....
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
........And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
......
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
..........
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.

RogerW
Dec 29th 2008, 01:52 AM
They use 'then all Israel will be saved' but like you I still see that as a remnant.

Hi Sirus,

I don't see "all Israel will be saved" as merely the ethnic remnant. I believe "all Israel" is the True Church, the Bride of Christ, the elect according to the foreknowledge of God. The remnant from the nation, saved by grace through faith, AND the great multitude from every nation, also saved by grace through faith.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

"All Israel" that will be saved are the Israel of God. This Israel is not limited to only the elect remnant, but also to every man/woman made alive in Christ by grace through faith.

True Israel are such as are of a clean heart.

Ps 73:1 A Psalm of Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.

In Christ being a Jew avails nothing. It matters not in Christ whether one is circumcisied or uncircumcisied, but mercy upon the Israel of God.

Ga 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Ga 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

True Israel are the Seed of Abraham by faith.

Ga 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Ga 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Ga 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If the true are the Seed through Abraham, and all the seed of Israel shall be justified, then all men of the same faith of Abraham are the true Israel of God.

Isa 45:25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

The children of Israel, called the sons of the living God cannot be numbered or measured.

Ho 1:10 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.

The great multitude that cannot be numbered; i.e. the True Israel, the Israel of God come from every nation.

Re 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Re 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
Re 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

One is a Jew; i.e. Israel of God, inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart.

Ro 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The children of the promise come through the Seed of Isaac, these are the Israel of God.

Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Ro 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Ro 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Israel of God; true Israel worships God in the Spirit.

Php 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

This holy set apart people of God, coming from every nation are the predestined elect remnant from ethnic Israel before Christ, and the predestined elect multitude from every nation...together these are "all Israel that will be saved." The Spiritual Seed of Abraham by faith, not by flesh.



Here is where we differ. I cannot view election apart from God's foreknowledge. So it's not that God arbitrarily elected only a remnant, it's that only a remnant sought righteousness which is by faith in Christ -by grace through faith, and not by works.

Only a remnant from ethnic Israel are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. But they are not the only elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Every member built up a spiritual house, acceptable to God by Christ are an elect [chosen] generation, the people of God.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.



Yes but it does not say God flicked a switch and hardened them. They didn't believe and so God -concluded- them all in unbelief and gave the kingdom of God to a nation bearing fruit. The prophecies are that it will not end this way and God will again show his mighty right arm of salvation for Israel.

Since ethnic Israel rejected Christ, the Kingdom was taken from them and given to peoples from every nation of the world; i.e. a nation bringing forth fruits.

Mt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mt 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

When the fulness of the Gentiles come into the Kingdom, then "all Israel" will be saved. Not ethnic Israel, but the Israel of God. With the remnant from ethnic Israel and the fulness of the Gentiles "all Israel" shall be saved. Christ will take away the sins of True Israel, the Israel of God, the Seed of Abraham by faith.

Ethnic Israel were enemies concerning the gospel, so that salvation would go into all the world. But they are beloved according to election through the father's Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. In times past Gentiles did not believe God, but have now obtained mercy through their unbelief. Now those from ethnic Israel, who believe through the mercy shown them through believing Gentiles; i.e. proclaiming the gospel of salvation to them, they too can become saved.

Therefore God has concluded them all, (both cut off Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all through the gospel going unto all the world. Will He extend mercy to every man? No! But He will extend mercy to all His predestined elect, all those foreknown, chosen in Him before the foundation of the world to obtain mercy.

Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Ro 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Ro 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Ro 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Ro 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Ro 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Ro 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 29th 2008, 03:19 AM
I don't see "all Israel will be saved" as merely the ethnic remnant. I believe "all Israel" is the True Church, the Bride of Christ, the elect according to the foreknowledge of God.
I agree with you about "all Israel" denoting the Jew plus Gentile church (as you know, I do not agree with your position on the matter of election, but that is not my point here).

Paul uses the term "Israel" in other contexts where we know that he must be referring to the church as constituted by both Jews and Gentiles. One example of this is in Galatians 6.

Sirus
Dec 29th 2008, 05:34 AM
When the fulness of the Gentiles come into the Kingdom, then "all Israel" will be saved. Not ethnic Israel, but the Israel of God. With the remnant from ethnic Israel and the fulness of the Gentiles "all Israel" shall be saved. Christ will take away the sins of True Israel, the Israel of God, the Seed of Abraham by faith.

Ethnic Israel were enemies concerning the gospel, so that salvation would go into all the world. But they are beloved according to election through the father's Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. In times past Gentiles did not believe God, but have now obtained mercy through their unbelief. Now those from ethnic Israel, who believe through the mercy shown them through believing Gentiles; i.e. proclaiming the gospel of salvation to them, they too can become saved. I agree. I do however believe in a millennial Israel (virgins and guests), but it also is made up of Jew and Gentile that will adorn (virgins/companions) the bride.



Therefore God has concluded them all, (both cut off Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all through the gospel going unto all the world. Will He extend mercy to every man? No! But He will extend mercy to all His predestined elect, all those foreknown, chosen in Him before the foundation of the world to obtain mercy.Just two things....
1) concluded them all in unbelief pertains to natural Israel only, not Gentiles
2) it very plainly says mercy to all. Sure, only those chosen (according to foreknowledge) in him from the foundation of the world accepts the mercy, but nevertheless it is extended to all, as literally hundreds of passages proclaim very plainly.

BroRog
Dec 29th 2008, 02:28 PM
I agree with you about "all Israel" denoting the Jew plus Gentile church (as you know, I do not agree with your position on the matter of election, but that is not my point here).

Paul uses the term "Israel" in other contexts where we know that he must be referring to the church as constituted by both Jews and Gentiles. One example of this is in Galatians 6.


Actually, that is the ONLY example and it is a disputed passage.

RogerW
Dec 29th 2008, 03:57 PM
I agree. I do however believe in a millennial Israel (virgins and guests), but it also is made up of Jew and Gentile that will adorn (virgins/companions) the bride.

Hi Sirus,

You are espousing a dispensational point of view. That being a future millennial period. I do not hold this view. The thousand years reign of Christ is found only in the book of Revelation. To make this thousand year period literal is not consistant with how Revelation is written. The whole book uses symbolism to show us the Revelation of Jesus Christ throughout redemptive or human history. This is why the thousand years must be interpreted symbolically, not literally.

I hold to the ammillennial view, and the thousand years symbolizing the fullness or completion of time. Therefore we are now in the thousand years reign of Christ, with Christ now reigning Spiritually from heaven. In the fullness of time, or at the completion of time, Christ will return to establish His Kingdom on earth bodily. All believers reign with Him Spiritually (now) throughout the fullness of time (1000 yrs), and we will reign with Him bodily at the end of time when He comes to establish His eternal Kingdom on earth.



Just two things....
1) concluded them all in unbelief pertains to natural Israel only, not Gentiles

How can this be, since the faithful remnant comes from natural Israel? Certainly Paul would not be saying "all Israel" meaning even the elect remnant. So who would that leave in unbelief? The "rest" (cut off Jews) of natural Israel and Gentiles.



2) it very plainly says mercy to all. Sure, only those chosen (according to foreknowledge) in him from the foundation of the world accepts the mercy, but nevertheless it is extended to all, as literally hundreds of passages proclaim very plainly.

"All" meaning the cut off Jew and Gentiles who have been chosen to receive grace. God does not choose based upon who will accept His mercy. Rather those who receive His mercy are the ones whom He has chosen. These are those elect from the foundation of the world, Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Eph 1)

If Paul is now telling us that God's mercy is extended to all (every), then he is contradicting what he has already told us in Ro 9. If God's mercy is extended to all, then how can He harden any? Did God extend mercy and compassion to Pharaoh? If not to Pharaoh, then clearly His mercy is not extended unto all.

Ro 9:15 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.
Ro 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Ro 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

You present salvation as the free gift merely offered. Salvation is NOT an offer, but a free gift given to all of His chosen people. Salvation is given through the hearing of the gospel that is offered to all man. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Ro 10:17).

Ro 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Ro 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Ro 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Dec 29th 2008, 04:05 PM
Actually, that is the ONLY example and it is a disputed passage.
It is not the only example as will be demonstrated in a subsequent post. The only way to believe "Israel" in Galatians 6:16 means "ethnic Israel" is to put Paul in the odd position of making a statement at the end of the letter which entirely undercuts the major theme of the entire letter:

Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

I put forward the following, expressing a central theme of Galatians, as expressed by NT Wright:

According to Galatians 3:10-14, God promised Abraham a worldwide family, but the Torah presents Israel, the promise bearers, with a curse. God deals with the curse in the death of Jesus, so that the promise may flow through to the world, renewing the covenant with Israel as well. According to 3:15-22, God promised Abraham a single worldwide family, but the Torah would forever keep Jews and Gentiles in separate compartments (exactly the problem of 2:11-21 and, we may assume, of the Galatian congregations). God has done in Christ and by the Spirit what the Torah could not do (3:21-22; 4:1-7; cf. Rom. 8:3-4), so that there now exists the single promised multiethnic monotheistic family, God’s “sons” and heirs.

If the above is understood to be a central theme, then Paul must have intended us to understand the "Israel of God" of 6:16 as being the Jew plus Gentile church, not national Israel.

drew
Dec 29th 2008, 04:11 PM
Actually, that is the ONLY example and it is a disputed passage.
Here is Romans 9:6 as rendered in the NASB:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

It is important to not go beyond what Paul actually says and read things into his text. What has Paul done in verse 6? All we can say without adding to what he is saying is this:

1. There is a body of people called "Israel" (this is his "first" Israel in 9:6);

2. There is a body of people who are "descended from Israel". I will assume that no reader will contest that this body of people are the ethnic Jews. I think it is clear from what follows verse 6 that, indeed, the phrase "descended from Israel" is intended to denote the Jewish race in general.

3. Not every person who is descended from Israel is part of this first Israel.

Note what we cannot infer from verse 6. We cannot infer that the first "Israel" in verse 6 is a category that excludes Gentiles. It might or it might not. We know from Galatians 6:16 that Paul sometimes uses the word "Israel" to denote a body of people that includes Gentiles. So we must leave that possibility open here in 9:6.

Consider Romans 4, where Paul describes the "true offspring of Abraham" as being constituted by both Jew and Gentile. As will be shown presently, this amounts to a declaration by Paul that there is a category called "Israel" containing Gentiles as well as Jews. The reader may object that I am reading too much into Romans 4 - that while Romans 4 obviously casts Abraham in the role of father to a Jew plus Gentile family, there is no warrant to think that this is in any sense an Israelcategory.

That is an entirely legitimate point to raise. The evidence that the Romans 4 Jew plus Gentile family is, in fact, an Israelcategory lies right here in Romans 9:

8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

I will assume that no one will challenge the assertion that here in verse 8, Paul is telling us something about the "first" Israel of verse 6 - and his point that this first Israel is populated by children of the promise and these people are regarded as the descendents of Abraham in his capacity as head of this "first" Israel. If we go back to Romans 4, we notice that Paul has used these same concepts - the concept of a set of persons who are true heirs to promise and who are heirs to this promise specifically because they are Abraham's offspring.

If Paul does not intend us to understand that this "first" Israel of verse 6 contains Gentiles, then the following must be true:

1. Paul is doing the very odd thing of using the same "children of promise" language in 4 and 8 to denote two entirely different groups - in 4, a Jew plus Gentile group, and in 9 a Jew only group;

2. Paul has two competing notions of who Abraham's true offspring are - in Romans 4 he sees them as a Jew plus Gentile group (clearly), while here in Romans 9, he sees them as a sub-set of national Israel. No competent writer would give competing definitions for the same basic category - Abraham's "real" descendents (his descendents in the sense that really matters).

drew
Dec 29th 2008, 04:23 PM
The purpose of this post is to add more evidence to the argument that the underlined "Israel" here in 9:6 is an example of Paul using the term Israel to denote the Jew plus Gentile church:

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

This argument is made to support the argument that when Paul writes "all Israel will be saved" near the end of Romans 11, he is actually not referring to a large-scale salvation of Jews.

From Romans 9:

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
25As He says also in Hosea,
"I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,'
AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.'"
26"AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,'
THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD."

While it is true that Paul starts his argument (early in Romans 9) with the claim that only a subset of national Israel are members of “true” Israel (the Israel that is underlined in the 9:6 extract above), it rapidly becomes clear that he expands membership in “true” Israel to include the Gentile.

As has been demonstrated elsewhere, Paul’s “children of promise” and “Abraham’s true offspring” concepts of verses 7 to 8 send the reader back to Romans 4 where Paul has used this same language to clearly identify the Jew plus Gentile family of faith. So it is already clear by verse 8 that Paul’s “true” Israel is not only made up of a sub-set of national Israel.

In verse 24, Paul makes a clear statement that God has bestowed his favour on both Jews and Gentiles. Is this also a commitment to the position that these Jews and Gentiles are “true” Israel? Indeed it is as will argued as follows.

Note how Paul initiates verse 25 with the phrase “As he says”. This is a linguistic device to inform the reader that what follows is an amplification, clarification, or restatement of what has just been said. This means that if it can be shown that verse 25 is talking about God's "true" Israel, we properly conclude this "true" Israel includes Gentiles.

Besides, there are other reasons to understand that the group described in verse 25 is this Jew plus Gentile family identified in verse 24 and, further, that this group is specifically “true” Israel.

Who are the people of God in Old Testament as per the Hosea quotation in verse 25? Clearly the nation of Israel. And the term “sons of God” is an Old Testament phrase to denote Israel (Exodus 4:22, Jer 31:9). Therefore we have every reason to believe that Paul is making a claim about the constitution of “true Israel” in verse 25 – he is telling us something about who the people of God (sons of God) are.

From verse 24, we know that God has bestowed his favour on Gentiles. Who are the Gentiles? They are those who are not part of the nation of Israel and who are therefore not the people, or the sons, of God.

So if, in verse 25. Paul is not making a point about the Gentiles being incorporated into the “true” people of God (“true” Israel), exactly who are these people who have been designated in the past as being “not God’s people”, and are now declared to both be “God’s people” and “sons of God”. I can see no alternative except to conclude that they are Gentiles and that God is saying that they have been grafted into “true” Israel.

BroRog
Dec 30th 2008, 04:42 AM
It is not the only example as will be demonstrated in a subsequent post. The only way to believe "Israel" in Galatians 6:16 means "ethnic Israel" is to put Paul in the odd position of making a statement at the end of the letter which entirely undercuts the major theme of the entire letter:

Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

I put forward the following, expressing a central theme of Galatians, as expressed by NT Wright:

According to Galatians 3:10-14, God promised Abraham a worldwide family, but the Torah presents Israel, the promise bearers, with a curse. God deals with the curse in the death of Jesus, so that the promise may flow through to the world, renewing the covenant with Israel as well. According to 3:15-22, God promised Abraham a single worldwide family, but the Torah would forever keep Jews and Gentiles in separate compartments (exactly the problem of 2:11-21 and, we may assume, of the Galatian congregations). God has done in Christ and by the Spirit what the Torah could not do (3:21-22; 4:1-7; cf. Rom. 8:3-4), so that there now exists the single promised multiethnic monotheistic family, God’s “sons” and heirs.

If the above is understood to be a central theme, then Paul must have intended us to understand the "Israel of God" of 6:16 as being the Jew plus Gentile church, not national Israel.

Sorry Drew. NT Wright hasn't got a clue.

BroRog
Dec 30th 2008, 04:44 AM
The purpose of this post is to add more evidence to the argument that the underlined "Israel" here in 9:6 is an example of Paul using the term Israel to denote the Jew plus Gentile church:

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

This argument is made to support the argument that when Paul writes "all Israel will be saved" near the end of Romans 11, he is actually not referring to a large-scale salvation of Jews.

From Romans 9:

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
25As He says also in Hosea,
"I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,'
AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.'"
26"AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,'
THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD."

While it is true that Paul starts his argument (early in Romans 9) with the claim that only a subset of national Israel are members of “true” Israel (the Israel that is underlined in the 9:6 extract above), it rapidly becomes clear that he expands membership in “true” Israel to include the Gentile.

As has been demonstrated elsewhere, Paul’s “children of promise” and “Abraham’s true offspring” concepts of verses 7 to 8 send the reader back to Romans 4 where Paul has used this same language to clearly identify the Jew plus Gentile family of faith. So it is already clear by verse 8 that Paul’s “true” Israel is not only made up of a sub-set of national Israel.

In verse 24, Paul makes a clear statement that God has bestowed his favour on both Jews and Gentiles. Is this also a commitment to the position that these Jews and Gentiles are “true” Israel? Indeed it is as will argued as follows.

Note how Paul initiates verse 25 with the phrase “As he says”. This is a linguistic device to inform the reader that what follows is an amplification, clarification, or restatement of what has just been said. This means that if it can be shown that verse 25 is talking about God's "true" Israel, we properly conclude this "true" Israel includes Gentiles.

Besides, there are other reasons to understand that the group described in verse 25 is this Jew plus Gentile family identified in verse 24 and, further, that this group is specifically “true” Israel.

Who are the people of God in Old Testament as per the Hosea quotation in verse 25? Clearly the nation of Israel. And the term “sons of God” is an Old Testament phrase to denote Israel (Exodus 4:22, Jer 31:9). Therefore we have every reason to believe that Paul is making a claim about the constitution of “true Israel” in verse 25 – he is telling us something about who the people of God (sons of God) are.

From verse 24, we know that God has bestowed his favour on Gentiles. Who are the Gentiles? They are those who are not part of the nation of Israel and who are therefore not the people, or the sons, of God.

So if, in verse 25. Paul is not making a point about the Gentiles being incorporated into the “true” people of God (“true” Israel), exactly who are these people who have been designated in the past as being “not God’s people”, and are now declared to both be “God’s people” and “sons of God”. I can see no alternative except to conclude that they are Gentiles and that God is saying that they have been grafted into “true” Israel.

Sorry Drew. You don't have a clue either.

Jude
Dec 30th 2008, 05:00 AM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/aniwolf2.gif

Has anyone brought out the election is by foreknowledge? God knows the beginning and the end, he is the Alpha and the Omega. Take Judas for an example Jesus plainly stated that he had chosen the twelve and one of them was a devil. Some attempt to say he repented and was saved after all, since when does a devil repent, your either a sheep or a goat, the Lords sheep here him and follow him a goat could care less.

Jude

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

drew
Dec 30th 2008, 05:17 AM
Sorry Drew. NT Wright hasn't got a clue.
Thanks the constructive remark.

If you wish to be a serious participant and critique Wright's position on the meaning of Galatians, please do so.

drew
Dec 30th 2008, 05:20 AM
Sorry Drew. You don't have a clue either.
Of course, your response is entirely devoid of content and is dismissive. I provided a detailed and, I think, clear argument. You are free to critique it, but this kind of comment is entirely unhelpful.

drew
Dec 30th 2008, 05:38 AM
Here is Romans 9:6 again:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

It has already been argued that, as in Galatians 6:16, Paul here considers "true" Israel (the underlined Israel) to actually be constituted by Jewish and Gentile believers. Thus, when Paul says "All Israel will be saved" in Romans 11, Paul is making a statement about the church, not about the nation of Israel.

This post is further argument for understanding that this "true" Israel is constituted by Jewish and Gentile believers. The essence of the argument here will be that because, in Romans 4 to 8, Paul systematically hands over Israel's blessings to the Jew plus Gentile family of faith, he considers this latter family to be the "true" intended recipient of such blessings and hence true Israel.

What are the covenant promises made to Israel? They are summarized in 9:4 and 5:

....the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption (http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=34614&start=15) as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen

Consider the sonship blessing. What has Paul said about the Jew + Gentile family of God in Romans 8?

14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.

Consider the glory blessing. What has Paul said about the Jew + Gentile family of God in Romans 5?:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

And what has Paul said about the Jew+Gentile family of God in Romans 8?:

17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory

Consider the covenant blessing. What has Paul said about the Jew + Gentile family of God in Romans 4?:

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith

What is this promise? It is the promise set forth in the context of the covenant in Genesis 17:

As for Me, behold, My [B]covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
5"No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations

More soon....

drew
Dec 30th 2008, 05:39 AM
....continuing from previous post:

Consider the blessing about the receiving of the law. What has Paul said in Romans 7 and 8? In Romans 7, he addresses the purpose and function of Torah for the Jew. In Romans 8, we get this statement about law:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death

Paul sees that the church gets law.

Consider the blessing of temple worship. Here is what Paul says in Romans 5:1 to 5:8. While the word “worship” does not appear here explicitly, I assert that this is essentially an expression of worship on the part of the Jew + Gentile family of God:

1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. 6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Consider the promise blessing. Here in Romans 4, Paul clearly ascribes this very blessing to the Jew + Gentile family of God:

16For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,…

Consider the partriarch blessing. This same Romans 4 text asserts that the Jew + Gentile family of God has Abraham as its father.

Paul knows what he is doing - he systematically ascribes all the covenant promises over to the "true" Israel - the family of Jew + Gentile believers.

Consider again the dense and explicit summary of the covenant promises to Israel in 9:5. In chapters 4 through 8, these same blessings are ascribed to the Jew plus Gentile family of God. No doubt, some will argue that I am inventing a connection here and there is no justification for a conclusion that Paul sees the Israel blessing as being handed over to the church.

In response, I would suggest that it would be quite a coincidence if the following collectively do not suggest an intention on the part of Paul to see Israel’s blessings transferred over to this Jew + Gentile family:

· In chapters 4 to 8 a series of blessing are ascribed to the Jew + Gentile family of God;

· In chapter 9, Paul opens with a lament over the dire situation of Israel, followed immediately by a listing of the blessings for Israel. The fact that Paul considers Israel to be in a bad way strongly suggests that these blessings are no longer hers.

· Paul continues in chapter 9 to argue that the majority of Jews have been molded by God as vessels fitted for destruction for the very benefit of the vessels of mercy that are clearly believing Gentiles and believing Jews - an argument that, again, fits well with the notion that God has taken from Israel and given to the church. (I realize some will dispute that these vessels of destruction are indeed unbelieving Jews. I have made that case extensively elsewhere without in any way leveraging the content of the present argument – so there is no circularity).

· Paul goes on to say, in verses 30-33 that the Gentiles have benefited while the Jews have gone astray. Again, this is highly consistent with Paul believing that Israel has lost her blessings and the Gentiles have been the beneficiary;

· Paul makes repeated statements in Romans 11 about how the Jews (the overwhelming majority of them anyway) have been broken off from the olive tree that is God’s true family and the Gentiles grafted in – again entirely consistent with the proposal I am advancing.

BroRog
Dec 30th 2008, 02:44 PM
Of course, your response is entirely devoid of content and is dismissive. I provided a detailed and, I think, clear argument. You are free to critique it, but this kind of comment is entirely unhelpful.

Okay, here is my critique. You would make a good seminary professor, since just like a seminary professor, you know what you want the Bible to say in advance and attempt to find cleaver ways to make it say what you already believe.

I'm not going to sit down and pick your entire paper apart here because you aren't listening. We've already seen what you have done with just two verses from Romans 9, completely ignoring the text in favor of your preconceived ideas. And I couldn't talk you out of it, even after pointing out the many problems you have with your interpretation of them.

I have no expectation of having a productive dialog about the text because, you seem to have no interest in the text.

drew
Dec 30th 2008, 04:48 PM
Okay, here is my critique. You would make a good seminary professor, since just like a seminary professor, you know what you want the Bible to say in advance and attempt to find cleaver ways to make it say what you already believe.
Of course, you have precisely zero evidence that I have approached the scriptures with any pre-conception of what they mean. How could you possibly know what my motivations are unless you read minds.

Do you read minds?


I'm not going to sit down and pick your entire paper apart here because you aren't listening.
Another statement of your for which you cannot possibly have any evidence at all. Unless you have some magical power, you cannot possibly know whether I am "listening" or not.


We've already seen what you have done with just two verses from Romans 9, completely ignoring the text in favor of your preconceived ideas. And I couldn't talk you out of it, even after pointing out the many problems you have with your interpretation of them.
All right, tell me where my errors are. Please point out the actual places where my analysis fails. If you choose not to do this, the objective reader will come to the obvious conclusion - namely that my argument appears to be sound. Improper arguments can be demonstrated to be such.

Now I undersand that you may not have time to critique what I have written - it took me a fair bit of time to develop these arguments.

But the reader will not be fooled by simply dismissing my arguments as being the product of a biased mind who "doesn't have a clue". The arguments are what they are. Even if someone came to text with a pre-conceived bias, the arguments that person produced should be subject to being shown to be incorred, if in fact they are.


I have no expectation of having a productive dialog about the text because, you seem to have no interest in the text.
Another statement about my motivations for which you cannot possibly have the relevant evidence.

Besides, I should think that the amount of material I have produced would show that I have great interest in the text.

I expect to post more shortly. Should you (or others) decide to actually engage in discussing the texts, and not speculating about motives, I will be more than happy to oblige.

alethos
Dec 30th 2008, 05:19 PM
1.Does God know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell in the end?
i think we can say yes

2. Does God know the end of a person before the beginning? Does he know a persons destiny before he creates them?

Yes. I think we will all agree on this point. God is Alpha/Omega. He does not say, man, i sure hope this one turns out ok lol


So, how do you guys reconcile this information:

God creates some people knowing full and well that they, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will end up in hell

this is why i believe in double predestination

opinions? scriptures?

Scriptures do teach predestination, but not that God predestines some to eternal life and others to eternal suffering. He predestines "whosoever will" to be saved. "whosoever will may come" Rev. 22:17

BroRog
Dec 30th 2008, 07:16 PM
Of course, you have precisely zero evidence that I have approached the scriptures with any pre-conception of what they mean. How could you possibly know what my motivations are unless you read minds.

Do you read minds?

Yes, but I'm not allowed to use my powers among humans. :)

But I am allowed to observe humans and draw conclusions from what I read.


Another statement of your for which you cannot possibly have any evidence at all. Unless you have some magical power, you cannot possibly know whether I am "listening" or not.

Yes, I have magical powers, but again, I'm not allowed to use them on your planet. Instead, I'm only allowed to make conversation with humans. But if I say something and the other person acts like I never said it, that's evidence they weren't listening.

I was way ahead of you when I told you that most people totally ignore the first five verses of Romans. And yet, when you finally got around to posting your interpretation, you did just that.


All right, tell me where my errors are. Please point out the actual places where my analysis fails.


In general, your analysis does not make the slightest attempt to follow Paul's flow of thought or explain how one concept relates to another.


If you choose not to do this, the objective reader will come to the obvious conclusion - namely that my argument appears to be sound. Improper arguments can be demonstrated to be such.

I don't think so. Evidence demonstrates clearly that people who discuss the Bible on Christian discussion boards have no interest whatsoever of discovering a sound argument. I think we just like to hear ourselves talk, chase our tails, going over the same ground time after wasted time.


But the reader will not be fooled by simply dismissing my arguments as being the product of a biased mind who "doesn't have a clue". The arguments are what they are. Even if someone came to text with a pre-conceived bias, the arguments that person produced should be subject to being shown to be incorred, if in fact they are.


I wasn't talking to the reader. I was talking to you, spending extra time with you because you seemed to be a reasonable person who might want to actually think about what they read. Was I wrong?


Besides, I should think that the amount of material I have produced would show that I have great interest in the text.


That's what I'm saying. You strike me as someone who wants to think about the text.


I expect to post more shortly. Should you (or others) decide to actually engage in discussing the texts, and not speculating about motives, I will be more than happy to oblige.


If you continue to spout more covenant theology bilge water, I won't be responding. Good luck with that.

John146
Dec 30th 2008, 07:40 PM
The problem is, you are not taking Paul at his word.

Let me take a short cut and show you where your view jumps the track.

A. For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

B. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

The section I labeled "A" above, comes from the book of Exodus in which we read, for the first time, that God reserves the right to save any individual among the sons of Jacob, even as his covenant is with the entire nation. Paul concludes from this that God's merciful act to save an individual does not depend on what that man does or what he wants. If God decides to save a man, that man has no choice in the matter. Period.

The section I labeled "B" above also comes from the book of Exodus. And Paul concludes that God hardens the heart of anybody he wants.

Putting these both together we have a complete picture of how a man gets saved. God chooses whom to save. He has mercy on those he wants to save, and it doesn't matter what the man wants or does. And for those he doesn't want to save, he hardens their hearts.

What Israel (the country) is seeking, it has not obtained, but those (individuals) who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, Eyes to see not and ears to hear not, Down to this very day."You are missing the reason why God gave them a spirit of stupor. It was because of their unbelief.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

But the good news is that despite being cut off because of their unbelief they could be grafted in again if they would "abide not still in unbelief".

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

God gave them over to unbelief so that the Gentiles could obtain mercy through their unbelief and then those same unbelieving Jews could then obtain mercy through the mercy of the Gentiles.

30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

John146
Dec 30th 2008, 07:51 PM
Hi Eric,

But we are arguing over the word being translated "elect". We know chosen can be used as being chosen for God's purpose in this world, but my point speaks specifically to each verse eklektos (specifically) has been translated "elect". We also find the Greek eklektos translated "chosen." Again, whether translated "elect" or "chosen" throughout the NT it refers to those foreknown by God, being predestined to eternal life. Can you show me anywhere in the NT where the specific Greek word eklektos has been translated "elect" or "chosen" and it does not refer those predestined to eternal life?

The problem I encounter in Ro 9 and 11 is that the word translated "election/chosen" does not come specifically from the Greek word eklektos, but from the Greek word ekloge which means (divine) selection (abstractly or concretely):--chosen, election. Does this divine selection also mean those predestined for eternal life? No, I don't believe it means that in Romans 9:11. That has been the point all along. The context does not say that it relates to election to eternal life but instead speaks about it in relation to God's purposes and in relation to the elder serving the younger in the case of Jacob and Esau. Also, by reading the related OT verses (Genesis 25:23, Malachi 1) we can see that it relates to God's election of the nation of Israel, represented by Jacob, and that Israel would be stronger than the nation of Edom, represented by Esau.

John146
Dec 30th 2008, 08:02 PM
i may be wrong but i believe these verses are talking about the effeciency of Jesus sacrifice. Any one in the world can come to Jesus and have their sins forgiven. It is Gods will that none should perish. However obviously that will not happen.

This is a very interesting point as well. If God wills all men to be saved, and if it is God who ultimately saves a person, why does God desire and command everyone to repent?

It sounds strange. Im not here to question God because I am the one with the confusion not Him. but i think God commands everyone to repent so that they dont have an excuse. For example on the last day some might say, "well you didnt care about me so i didnt repent", and He would say, it is written, i desire for all men to come to repentance.

very mind boggling. one of the few areas of my faith where things are very cloudy. We know that the new birth is by the Spirit, not by human will or exertion thoughDo you believe that God would command everyone to repent if not everyone could repent? I certainly don't believe so. I don't see how that would make any sense.


hmmmm.. i guess the question is, does a person living in a state of spiritual death(not a literally dead spirit but a spirit seperated from God), an enemy of God, have in and of himself, apart from the work of the Spirit, to desire God? Can a spiritually dead person call out to God? An enemy of God choose to love God, apart from a work of God?

im not asking these to prove a point i honestly am searching for answers on this subject:confusedI believe a spiritually dead person can be persuaded, through the preaching of the word and the convicting work of the Spirit, to believe in Christ and the gospel. It is a choice everyone must make, whether to believe or not. I believe all people have this capability. That must be the case since God desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and all to come to repentance (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9).

drew
Dec 30th 2008, 08:28 PM
Of course, you have precisely zero evidence that I have approached the scriptures with any pre-conception of what they mean. How could you possibly know what my motivations are unless you read minds.

Do you read minds?


But I am allowed to observe humans and draw conclusions from what I read.
But you clearly cannot discern motivations or bias simply by reading an argument for a certain position, unless the author explcitly asserts that he is biased.

The intelligent reader will know that what matters is the content of the actual argument, regardless of whether it was generated from a biased starting point.

You have no basis at all for reaching any conclusions about my pre-conceptions. You have the argument - why are you not engaging it?


I was way ahead of you when I told you that most people totally ignore the first five verses of Romans. And yet, when you finally got around to posting your interpretation, you did just that
Well then, please set me right. Explain to me precisely how any of my argument fails when these verses are taken into account.

drew
Dec 30th 2008, 08:36 PM
In general, your analysis does not make the slightest attempt to follow Paul's flow of thought or explain how one concept relates to another.
This statement is merely an assertion - if you care to provide support for it, I will be happy to respond.


Evidence demonstrates clearly that people who discuss the Bible on Christian discussion boards have no interest whatsoever of discovering a sound argument. I think we just like to hear ourselves talk, chase our tails, going over the same ground time after wasted time.
I assume that you include yourself under this generalization? Again, it is the arguments and their strengths and weaknesses that are important. If people come here merely to hear themselves talk, that is their loss.


If you continue to spout more covenant theology bilge water, I won't be responding. Good luck with that.
Of course, this is highly non-constructive statement. I will continue to post on this matter, as I think there are a lot more interesting and important things to say. You are always welcome to engage the arguments, but it is a bit sad that you resort to such dimissive rhetoric.

Sirus
Dec 31st 2008, 05:20 AM
You are espousing a dispensational point of view.Amen to that!
However I am not at all like most dispensationalist.


The thousand years reign of Christ is found only in the book of Revelation. To make this thousand year period literal is not consistant with how Revelation is written. The whole book uses symbolism to show us the Revelation of Jesus Christ throughout redemptive or human history. This is why the thousand years must be interpreted symbolically, not literally. Wrong! The whole book is not symbolism IMO. When I read the New Jerusalem descending from heaven and God dwelling with man on earth I see something literal, don’t you? That’s one obvious example, and I do admit there are other examples not so obvious that I believe to be literal. I do not have a hard time believing things contained in the book that most assume are allegorical or symbolic. The reason for this should be obvious to any serious student of the Word. ALL allegory is defined by scripture. If scripture does not define the symbol, it is not allegory. Scripture must interpret Scripture, else man must interpret, which demands error. Hence, the a-millennial view.



How can this be, since the faithful remnant comes from natural Israel? Certainly Paul would not be saying "all Israel" meaning even the elect remnant. So who would that leave in unbelief? The "rest" (cut off Jews) of natural Israel and Gentiles. The rest (v7) are the all. The enemies (v28) are the all. The their (v30) are the all. The these (v31) are the all. The them (v32) are the all. All of those are Jews ONLY!!!! To lump Gentiles in the lump contradicts the entire chapter and the preceding two chapters.



"All" meaning the cut off Jew and Gentiles who have been chosen to receive grace. God does not choose based upon who will accept His mercy. Rather those who receive His mercy are the ones whom He has chosen. These are those elect from the foundation of the world, Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Eph 1) The basic fundamental understand and definition of foreknowledge very simply proves that God does in fact choose based on who accepts his mercy. We mortals have a tendency to miss the forest for the trees. His will is that none perish and that all come to repentance.



If Paul is now telling us that God's mercy is extended to all (every), then he is contradicting what he has already told us in Ro 9. If God's mercy is extended to all, then how can He harden any? Did God extend mercy and compassion to Pharaoh? If not to Pharaoh, then clearly His mercy is not extended unto all. Your understanding of Romans 9 is not holistic. Meaning you do not interpret the accounts of Pharaoh, Esau, and Jacob with the same consistent literal interpretation you interpret Romans 9. If you were consistent, you would realize God did in fact give Pharaoh the opportunity to back down on several occasion but Pharaoh hardened his heart. Isn’t that what it says? Pharaoh hardened his heart? Did not God say that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart by multiplying signs and wonders? Yes, that is what it says. The very basic fundamental bible principle found from cover to cover is that God hardens those that harden their hearts because they do not repent. Every man is born with knowledge of and from God, knowing and holding truth, and through a rejection of that knowledge and truth to follow their vain and foolish heart become darkened, though they were not born darkened and without knowledge and truth . They were just born in the dark.

drew
Dec 31st 2008, 05:09 PM
Your understanding of Romans 9 is not holistic. Meaning you do not interpret the accounts of Pharaoh, Esau, and Jacob with the same consistent literal interpretation you interpret Romans 9.
I know that we have been over this same issue dozens of times, but I will try a different, broader approach in order to demonstrate that election of specific people to an ultimate destiny is no where in Paul's thinking in Romans. Please excuse the length - I have tried to be as concise as possible:

While it is widely accepted that chapters 9 through 11 constitute an identifiable block within the letter, there is no such consensus as to what subject Paul is addressing here. One’s belief about the subject matter of 9 to 11 will, of course, be informed by one’s view about what the letter as a whole about, especially the preceding 8 chapters.

Many, perhaps most, think chapters 1 through 8 are basically a treatment of the matter of personal salvation. On such a view, chapters 1 through 4 address the universality of sin and how we are rescued from this by faith in Christ. On such a view, chapters 5 to 8 then spell out how we are “sanctified” as a result.

To the extent that such a view ignores the implicit covenantal references and the Jew – Gentile distinctions that saturate chapters 1 through 4, the transition in chapters 9 to 11 to a treatment of Israel and her relation to the Gentiles comes as quite a dramatic change in focus. This alone should raise red flags about this traditional interpretation of chapters 1 through 8 if, like me, you are inclined to believe that Paul is a highly skilled and competent writer, not inclined to go off on tangents.

There are a wide range of other opinions on what Paul’s basic thrust is in the letter as a whole and in 9 to 11 in particular. I will now express my view on this.

I believe that in Romans Paul is doing more than expressing his “salvation theology” and trying sort out Jew-Gentile divisions in the Roman church through common-sense exhortations to “get along”. He certainly do these things, but his argument is wider and more sophisticated than such a picture might imply.

First, it can be plausibly asserted that Paul wants to use Rome as a home-base for his plans to spread the gospel in the west part of the Mediterranean basin as he has done in the East:

But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.

I will further suggest that in order to have the necessary unity in the Roman church, Paul goes to great pains to paint a detailed theologically grounded picture of how Jew and Gentile have been brought together in the purposes of God. The reader who knows Romans 9 to 11, will know that such a suggestion works with the content of those chapters.

The reader familiar with Galatians will know that Paul was centrally concerned with rebuking a movement whereby Jewish Christians were slipping back into their own ethnic identity by reverting to some practices of Torah. It can be argued, I suggest, that Paul is concerned in Romans with the redressing the mirror opposite problem – that Gentile Christians will marginalize Jewish believers who are steeped in pursuit of a thoroughly discredited and now abolished ethnic charter of Torah.

This hypothesis is strengthened by Paul’s assiduous efforts to affirm the fundamental goodness of the Torah in Romans 7 (even though Paul affirms its abolition).

Anxious about such possibilities, Paul wants to make the case that Jew and Gentile are equal members in the church (Romans 1:16, properly translated, states that the gospel message is for the Jew first, but equally for the Greek), and that God countenance a gospel mission to Jews. This, of course, is perfectly consistent with what he writes in Romans 11.

How will Paul make the case? Will he simply exhort the Jews and Gentiles to get along (as many think)? No. With his keen theological eye, Paul constructs a sophisticated theological argument to undergird his exhortations for unity. And Paul’s argument, which pervades the first 11 chapters of Romans, is specifically covenantal. Thus when Paul refers to the “righteousness of God” (e.g. towards the end of chapter 3), this not a general righteousness on God’s part, but rather God’s righteousness in honouring covenantal promises.

So while the climax of Paul’s theological argument is presented in chapters 9 to 11, the entire 1 to 11 block embodies an argument about how God has, in Jesus Christ, been faithful to covenant promises made to Abraham. Such an argument must, of course, explain exactly how God has used Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles as covenantally promised. Romans 9 to 11 is precisely such an argument, expressed in terms of history: Though often overlooked Romans 9 and 10 present a chronology of God’s dealing with Israel: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, captivity in Egypt, delivery from Egypt, exile, restoration from exile, Christ, and finally, the mission of the Church.

More later......

drew
Dec 31st 2008, 05:23 PM
This post deals with Romans 9 to 11,with a focus on the meaning of the potter metaphor, and presents a particular view about what Paul's intended message is. This position will be at variance with the widely held notion that Romans 9 (in particular) contains a treatment of the doctrine of election of individuals.

Again, sorry for the length - I believe that the nature of the case requires such a detailed treatment.

Important note: This argument is targeted against a view that, in Romans 9, Paul is making a poiint about the election of human beings in general (Jew or Gentile). I am well aware that there are those who think that his cased is focused on Israel - that only a subset of those in national Israel are in fact "elect". I think that both positions are wrong, but the argument here is tailored to respond to the first view - that Paul is making a point about the election of both Jew and Gentile individuals.

I will first provide a summary statement of my position (contrasting it with the “standard” position) and then defend it.

Paul’s potter metaphor is not a treatment of God pre-destining some to heaven and others to hell, but instead expresses Paul’s conclusion that, in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant, God has hardened Israel in order to rescue his creation from the problem of evil. Thus, the vessels of destruction are unbelieving Jews whose hardening is not a mystery at all but instead serves a very specific salvific function (to be spelled out later). In contrast, the standard position asserts that the vessels fitted for destruction are all those, Jew or Gentile, whom God has fore-ordained to loss, for reasons that are fundamentally unknowable to us. Furthermore, under the position I am advocating, the vessels of glory are the Jew plus Gentile family whose salvation is made possible by the hardening of the Jews. Under the standard view, these vessels of glory are specific individuals (Jew or Gentile) whose ultimate salvation is fore-ordained by God.

At first glance, my position on the vessels of mercy may seem to be essentially the same as the “standard” position. This is not quite true – I think that Paul’s overall argument is at the level of nations and that he uses the vessels of glory metaphor to make the statement that Christ’s death needs to be understood as making salvation possible for all people – whether Jew or Gentile.

My overall approach will be argue that what Paul is saying in 9 to 11 as a whole sustain my stated position on the meaning of the potter metaphor while discrediting the standard position. In so doing, I will appeal to the hypothesis that Paul constructs coherent, well-integrated arguments. If we allow that Paul jumps wildly and arbitrarily from topic to topic without announcement, almost any interpretation of the potter metaphor can be defended.

In this post, I will simply assert the main components of my argument in extremely compact form to provide a very high level view of the argument. Of course, each element of this overview needs to be defended and elaborated.

· Romans 9 and 10 have the (often missed) property of being an extremely compact review of the entire history of God’s dealings with Israel. The set of events Paul reprises covers the entire Abraham to Christ sequence (and beyond). All events are in precisely the correct time sequence. This cannot be a co-incidence – Paul is replaying Israel’s history for some reason;

· Romans 9 to 11 contains a treatment of the righteousness of God. In chapter 9, Paul raises (and answers) questions as to whether God is acting justly. In chapter 11, Paul also makes allusion to the rigteousness of God.

· Given the fact that the righteousness of God questions are interwoven into a treatment of God’s historical dealings with Israel, we reasonably conclude that Paul is addressing the issue of whether God has been righteous in his treatment of Israel. We already can discern a problem with the standard view – why would Paul insert a relatively significant argument about a theology of individual pre-destination (which of course has nothing to do with Israel specificity) into an argument about Israel?

· The righteousness of God (in respect to Israel) is not merely a “general” righteousness, but is a more specific matter of God being faithful to the Abrahamic covenant whose ultimate purpose is to solve the Adamic sin problem for all mankind and to do so specifically through Israel.

· Romans 9 to 11 is therefore Paul’s argument about how God has been faithful to the Abrahamic covenant and has solved the Adamic sin problem through his dealings with the nation of Israel.

· The questions that Paul raises about God’s righteousness in chapter 9 are generated by Paul’s observation (and grief) about the dire situation of Israel. Again, note the coherence of the position I am advocating – since Paul laments about Israel at the beginning of chapter 9, it makes perfect sense that he go on to ask questions as to why it is fair that Israel is in such a state. On the standard view, he is asking questions about the fairness of electing one person to heaven and another to hell with no relation at all to the matter he is so concerned about – the sad state of Israel.

· Through his use of the potter metaphor, Paul responds to the challenge of Israel’s lost state by making the argument the potter has the right to do whatever he wants with the pot that is Israel. The potter metaphor is used extensively in the Old Testament to characterise God’s dealing with Israel.

· However, Paul does not stop at such a superficial analysis – through a line of arugment running from 5.20 through 7:13 to 8:3, Paul proposes that God has used the Torah to increase and concentrate sin in Israel, thus facilitating its transfer into the body of her representative Messiah where sin is then condemned. And it is the condemning of sin on the cross that fulfills the covenant promise to solve the sin problem for all mankind (read “Jews and Gentiles”). And, of course, Paul makes it clear that, precisely as promised, Israel has been used by God to this end.

· This argument is absolutely vital to one of Paul’s central concerns in writing Romans – to pomote unity in the Jew plus Gentile church at Rome by helping them to understand how God has brought them together in God’s plan. By deploying the argument of the preceding paragraph, Paul helps the Gentile realize the debt he owes to the Jew. This will redress any inclination of Gentiles in the Roman church to treat the Jews as lesser brothers. Romans 11 deals with this extensively.

· Note that, by contrast, the standard position offers nothing, I believe, beyond the explanation that God, as potter, has the right to pre-destine some to hell if that is what he wants to do.

RogerW
Dec 31st 2008, 06:51 PM
Amen to that!
However I am not at all like most dispensationalist.

Wrong! The whole book is not symbolism IMO. When I read the New Jerusalem descending from heaven and God dwelling with man on earth I see something literal, don’t you?

All symbolism! Certainly you don't believe there is a literal holy city coming down from heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband? What literal truth do we gleen from the symbolism? Clearly, as you have said, that God will dwell with man on earth. This is discerned through the symbolic language John writes in. All of the book of Revelation is written in the same way.

The way the dispensationalist interprets the 1000 years, Christ must come again in the fullness of time, then again at the end of 1000 years. How can that be, when time ceased at His initial coming? How can there be yet another period of TIME (1000 years) when time has ended?



If scripture does not define the symbol, it is not allegory. Scripture must interpret Scripture, else man must interpret, which demands error. Hence, the a-millennial view.

I agree! It is not the a-mill view that does not allow Scripture to define symbolism. What the a-mill view will not do is read into Scripture what they have already determined it should say. The consistency in the a-mill view is that all Scripture is in harmony, where the dispensational view is not only disharmonious, but also contradictory.




The rest (v7) are the all. The enemies (v28) are the all. The their (v30) are the all. The these (v31) are the all. The them (v32) are the all. All of those are Jews ONLY!!!! To lump Gentiles in the lump contradicts the entire chapter and the preceding two chapters.

As I have said, the rest (unbelieving Jews)...but what is Paul telling us about the Gentiles? Paul tells us that Gentiles, "wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree."

The Gentiles too become partakers of the Root (Christ) and the olive tree (Israel of God). The elect Gentiles, predestined unto salvation will become part of Israel...not the nation, but the True Israel of God. When the fullness of the Gentiles come in..."so all Israel shall be saved." I don't know if I glossed over this, but we need to pay attention to the word "so" here. Many interpret this as "then all Israel shall be saved." "So" designates the manner (in this way) in which all Israel shall be saved.

Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Since many from the nation of Israel have already died in their sins, and Scripture teaches us that after death comes the judgment, we know that "all Israel" that shall be saved is NOT the natural, or the nation of Israel as a whole. The covenant unto them; all Israel, is to take away their (Israel of God) sins. As I have already shown (and you seemed to have ignored) True Israel includes EVERY believer, whether Jew or Gentile.

Ro 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.



The basic fundamental understand and definition of foreknowledge very simply proves that God does in fact choose based on who accepts his mercy. We mortals have a tendency to miss the forest for the trees. His will is that none perish and that all come to repentance.

Scripture defines for us two groups of people. The first group are foreknown by God because they are His predestined elect unto salvation, He chose them for salvation and wrote their names in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. The second group are those whom Christ will profess, " I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Of course God knows they will accept His mercy, because in the day of salvation He will change their hearts and wills, making them willing to come to Him that they might have life everlasting. He did not choose them based on anything good or evil in them, but simply because He will have mercy and compassion on whomsoever He wills.

How do you reconcile the passage in 2Pe 3:9 telling us that it is the will of God that none perish, but all come to repentance with the fact that many do indeed perish? Is there anything that the Sovereign God of the universe wills or does not will that will not come to pass? Who are the us-ward that the Lord is longsuffering toward?

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.



Your understanding of Romans 9 is not holistic. Meaning you do not interpret the accounts of Pharaoh, Esau, and Jacob with the same consistent literal interpretation you interpret Romans 9. If you were consistent, you would realize God did in fact give Pharaoh the opportunity to back down on several occasion but Pharaoh hardened his heart. Isn’t that what it says? Pharaoh hardened his heart? Did not God say that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart by multiplying signs and wonders? Yes, that is what it says.

I hear this same argument presented from time to time. Who really hardened who and why? God spoke to Moses while he was still in the land of Midian, telling him to return to Egypt. According to the following passage God tells us that He will harden Pharaoh's heart, and as a result of this hardening Pharaoh will not let the people go.

Ex 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Now we can argue about how many times it is said that Pharaoh hardens his own heart, but that does not change the FACT that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let the people go. Why? So that he "might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." God NEVER gave Pharaoh opportunity to "back down". No man can resist God's will, and it was the will of God that Pharaoh's heart be hardened...therefore he was hardened, and never given opportunity for salvation.



The very basic fundamental bible principle found from cover to cover is that God hardens those that harden their hearts because they do not repent.

Very clearly this is not true! Pharaoh demonstrates that God hardens whom He will, and has mercy on whom He will.



Every man is born with knowledge of and from God, knowing and holding truth, and through a rejection of that knowledge and truth to follow their vain and foolish heart become darkened, though they were not born darkened and without knowledge and truth . They were just born in the dark.

Every man born in Adam is born with a nature to sin. Man does not become a sinner when he commits sin, men commit sin because he is born with a sin nature. There is none righteous, no, not one! We are altogether fallen, and will die in our sins unless God intervenes in the lives of some men, changing their wills and giving them a heart that longs to serve Him. If God did not choose to save some men in electing and predestinating them unto eternal life, then no man would be saved. Every man will remain in the dark, and never of themselves come to the True Light for life unless God supernaturally works in them through the power of the Word and Holy Spirit.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Dec 31st 2008, 07:33 PM
But you clearly cannot discern motivations or bias simply by reading an argument for a certain position, unless the author explcitly asserts that he is biased.

Sure I can. Can't you? The more you post on the subject, the easier it is to see that you are trying to cleverly force the text to fit your own preconceived notions.


The intelligent reader will know that what matters is the content of the actual argument, regardless of whether it was generated from a biased starting point.

That's what I'm saying. I can tell from the content of your so-called argument that you have no interest in what the Apostle actually says. Your goal is to make the text fit the answer you already know is true. This is quite transparent.


You have no basis at all for reaching any conclusions about my pre-conceptions. You have the argument - why are you not engaging it?

The basis for my statements are the arguments you present. Your so-called arguments miss every point along the way such that anyone, including me, can clearly see your goal.


Well then, please set me right. Explain to me precisely how any of my argument fails when these verses are taken into account.


This would be impossible for two reasons. In order for me to rebut your work, I would literally have to teach you Romans 9 - 11 from start to finish. Secondly, and this is most critical, since you don't care to know Paul's objective meaning, for me to point it out to you will be fruitless, just as it has been so far in this tread. I already pointed out a couple of major flaws in your argument and you did not listen to me at all. Your only interest seems to be your goal to spew forth your own point of view.

BroRog
Dec 31st 2008, 07:47 PM
You are missing the reason why God gave them a spirit of stupor. It was because of their unbelief.

What difference does it make as to why God gave them a spirit of stupor? The reason and the purpose doesn't matter one bit. The only thing that matters to Paul's argument is the FACT that God gave them a spirit of stupor.

The fact that God gives anyone a spirit of stupor should cause us to pause and reflect. It's too easy for us to forget the most fundamental fact of our experience, which is that each of us were unbelievers BEFORE we came to belief. If God gave anyone and everyone a spirit of stupor because of their unbelief, none of us would ever come to belief in the first place.

And if God purposefully kept some Jews from eternal life just so us Gentile dogs might come to faith, what does that say to your adnausium squawking about freewill? The idea that God fixes someone in unbelief so as to NEVER come to him obviously counter poses any thought of freedom.

drew
Dec 31st 2008, 08:52 PM
But you clearly cannot discern motivations or bias simply by reading an argument for a certain position, unless the author explcitly asserts that he is biased.


Sure I can. Can't you? The more you post on the subject, the easier it is to see that you are trying to cleverly force the text to fit your own preconceived notions.
This is demonstrably incorrect reasoning. I could equally well be posting plenty of material given the presumption that I come to the text without pre-conceptions. That I have posted a lot demonstrates only that I am motivated to present my case. But, of course, you have no grounds for deducing that such motivation implies that I came to the text with pre-conceptions. I could have just as easily come to it with no bias, discovered a meaning, and then posted enthusiastically about that.

The intelligent reader will know that what matters is the content of the actual argument, regardless of whether it was generated from a biased starting point.

That's what I'm saying. I can tell from the content of your so-called argument that you have no interest in what the Apostle actually says. Your goal is to make the text fit the answer you already know is true. This is quite transparent.
You have precisely zero evidence for your claim that I am biased.


The basis for my statements are the arguments you present. Your so-called arguments miss every point along the way such that anyone, including me, can clearly see your goal.
I will ask you yet again - what specifically is wrong with my argument? Do you not think the reader will notice that you have ceased to discuss the text and are now impugning my motivations? How do you think that will reflect on the position you take in respect to the matter at issue?

Secondly, and this is most critical, since you don't care to know Paul's objective meaning, for me to point it out to you will be fruitless, just as it has been so far in this tread. I already pointed out a couple of major flaws in your argument and you did not listen to me at all. Your only interest seems to be your goal to spew forth your own point of view
What an outrageous falsehood. I read your arguments and my posts address them, directly and otherwise.
And what of your spiteful use of rhetoric - "Drew spews forth", "Drew does not have a clue", "Drew produces bilge water"?
Were you "elected" to such behaviour?

drew
Dec 31st 2008, 10:10 PM
So if the promises belong to Israel, and God has promised to soften all the hearts in Israel, why didn't he?

THAT is the question at issue in Romans 9 through 11. How is it that God made a promise to Israel, but not every son of Jacob is the beneficiary of that promise?

Has God's word failed?
This is not the issue that Paul is concerned with in to 9 to 11. Instead, Paul is concerned with addressing how the destiny of national Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles are woven together in the purposes of God. Since most Israel remains in unbelief, Paul argues that it is indeed fair that most Jews are on the outside of the renewed covenant, even though are ostensibly the covenant people. In fact, he argues that God planned it that way.

But notwithstanding the above, it is clear that Paul, in Romans 9:6 is not talking about an elect within national Israel.

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Despite the use of the term "Israel" (the underlined Israel), we know that Paul intends us to understand that Gentiles are in this "true" Israel (the underlined Israel).

How do we know this? Quite simply, from what Paul says immediately next:

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Rhetorically, it is clear that the group that Paul identifies as Abraham's true descendents are the ones who make up this "true" Israel. I believe that we all agree about this. We disagree on whether this is a subset of national Israel. I believe it is not - Gentiles are included in this true Israel.

Who are the the children of promise that are clearly the members of this true Israel.? Are they Jews or are they Jews + Genitiles. Consider what Paul has said about Abraham's children in Romans 4:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

I assume no one will dispute that Paul is describing an Abrahamic family constituted by Jews and Gentiles.

And what kind of a case is Paul making in Romans 9? As verse 7 states, qualifying verse 6:

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants,..

He is making a case about who Abraham's descendents are.

Unless Paul has forgotten what he said in Romans 4, he simply cannot be arguing that a subset of the Jews constitute Abraham's true offspring in Romans 9.

So Paul's case cannot be about election of a subset of national Israel as constituting Abraham's true descendents. We know from chapter 4 that Abraham's descendents include Gentiles.

Sirus
Jan 1st 2009, 12:03 AM
Your understanding of Romans 9 is not holistic. Meaning you do not interpret the accounts of Pharaoh, Esau, and Jacob with the same consistent literal interpretation you interpret Romans 9.I know that we have been over this same issue dozens of times, but I will try a different, broader approach in order to demonstrate that election of specific people to an ultimate destiny is no where in Paul's thinking in Romans. Please excuse the length - I have tried to be as concise as possible:My purpose was to expose the error of ignoring the personal accounts of these individuals. The text never says God made Jacob desire and believe the God of the covenant blessings or that God made Esau sell the birthright for a bowl of soup. In fact Hebrews says it was still his by birthright but Jacob wouldn't give it back (no place of repentance). God knowing the end from the beginning foreknew these events before they were born and 'chose' Jacob over Esau. Concerning eternity, Esau could have repented anytime. God knowing these two men 'chose' one over the other.

Pharaoh harden his heart against God even after signs and wonders (just as God said he would -foreknowledge) and with that hardened heart died in the Sea chasing God's children in opposition to God's will that Christ come in the flesh through Jacob (Rom 9). Again, God knowing the end from the beginning foreknew these events.

I agree Romans 9 is not mentioning election for the purpose of telling us some are saved and some are damned. Paul is simply going over what the Jews understood historically. We can read it. Well, some can.....




Many, perhaps most, think chapters 1 through 8 are basically a treatment of the matter of personal salvation. On such a view, chapters 1 through 4 address the universality of sin and how we are rescued from this by faith in Christ. On such a view, chapters 5 to 8 then spell out how we are “sanctified” as a result.This is why most people are in 'how we are saved mode' in Romans 9. Paul in fact is discussing personal salvation 1-8. It is the best explanation of the gospel in the NT, which is why the book is so loved by so many. There's no problem with this, the problem is with the the readers that cannot change gears and keep context.




Anxious about such possibilities, Paul wants to make the case that Jew and Gentile are equal members in the church (Romans 1:16, properly translated, states that the gospel message is for the Jew first, but equally for the Greek), and that God countenance a gospel mission to Jews. This, of course, is perfectly consistent with what he writes in Romans 11.Gentiles included. Paul does a lot more than just make the case for Gentiles. He has backed the Jews into a corner using the result of the law and confronted them with gospel of Christ that in fact and effectually does what the law could not do and never did do. Make man, in this life, in his experience, righteous.



So while the climax of Paul’s theological argument is presented in chapters 9 to 11, the entire 1 to 11 block embodies an argument about how God has, in Jesus Christ, been faithful to covenant promises made to Abraham. Such an argument must, of course, explain exactly how God has used Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles as covenantally promised. Romans 9 to 11 is precisely such an argument, expressed in terms of history: Though often overlooked Romans 9 and 10 present a chronology of God’s dealing with Israel: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, captivity in Egypt, delivery from Egypt, exile, restoration from exile, Christ, and finally, the mission of the Church.The climax of Romans is chapter 8. In chapter 9 Paul begins his explanation as to why and how Gentiles are heirs with Jews.

BroRog
Jan 1st 2009, 01:54 AM
This is demonstrably incorrect reasoning. I could equally well be posting plenty of material given the presumption that I come to the text without pre-conceptions.

You misunderstood. It isn't the volume of your posts that matters, but the content of your posts clearly demonstrate your agenda.


You have precisely zero evidence for your claim that I am biased.


Your posts are the evidence.


I will ask you yet again - what specifically is wrong with my argument?


I told you. You pay no attention to Paul's flow of thought and your argument is based on superfluous and tangential information, which has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.


Do you not think the reader will notice that you have ceased to discuss the text and are now impugning my motivations?

Do you think I care about the reader? I don't. I'm talking to you and no one else.


What an outrageous falsehood. I read your arguments and my posts address them, directly and otherwise.

You have not addressed my arguments at all, perhaps you didn't care to, you were too busy, or you just couldn't face the fact that you had to start all over. Perhaps it was a little of both.

It was obvious to me that you didn't understand what I was saying at all. I don't think you cared to understand.


And what of your spiteful use of rhetoric - "Drew spews forth", "Drew does not have a clue", "Drew produces bilge water"?
Were you "elected" to such behaviour?

Obviously.

But that is beside the point. The fact is, your interpretation of the text is so far off the mark that it is irredeemable. It can't be fixed. Just like a guy who missed his freeway exit, your only choice is to go back and find the right one.

Sirus
Jan 1st 2009, 02:22 AM
All symbolism! Certainly you don't believe there is a literal holy city coming down from heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband? What literal truth do we gleen from the symbolism? Clearly, as you have said, that God will dwell with man on earth. This is discerned through the symbolic language John writes in. All of the book of Revelation is written in the same way.Yes I do!
Abraham sojourned in the land of promise living in temporary shelters looking for a city made by God.
Jesus, the man, a carpenter, went to prepare a place for us.
Ezekiel saw a firmament carried by winged beast.
I have been given no reason to make that allegory, and every reason to believe it to be true, since we will dwell on a physical earth, physically, as Jesus' resurrected body was in fact physical flesh.

The seven churches were not only seven literal physical churches, but seven literal physical and historical church eras. Nothing symbolic about them. You are in one of them.

The tabernacle described is the same tabernacle Moses saw and made on earth on a smaller scale. He saw it. It is real. I have been given no reason to make that allegory, have you?

The candlesticks.
The twenty four seats for twenty four elders.
Four beasts with six wings.
Angels -created beings that are very very much like us to the point we don't even know we are in their presence -God makes to be spirits.
The 144,000.
I have been given no reason to make them allegory, have you?

According to your claim of supposed amil harmony, I fully expect scripture to explain how all these are allegory and never real. There's more, but my point is more than established.



The way the dispensationalist interprets the 1000 years, Christ must come again in the fullness of time, then again at the end of 1000 years. How can that be, when time ceased at His initial coming? How can there be yet another period of TIME (1000 years) when time has ended?Wha? What nut teaches that? Time is fulfilled because Jesus comes back to fulfill unfulfilled prophecy. He only comes back once. I told you I am not the average disp and you come back with something I've not heard. Amazing.
Oh, and time ended? What makes you say that? Scripture?




I agree! It is not the a-mill view that does not allow Scripture to define symbolism. What the a-mill view will not do is read into Scripture what they have already determined it should say. The consistency in the a-mill view is that all Scripture is in harmony, where the dispensational view is not only disharmonious, but also contradictoryROFL
My point exactly!!!




As I have said, the rest (unbelieving Jews)...but what is Paul telling us about the Gentiles? Paul tells us that Gentiles, "wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree."No. Paul has not abandoned his argument and elevated it to include Gentiles. Only Israel is 'the rest'.




Scripture defines for us two groups of people. The first group are foreknown by God because they are His predestined elect unto salvation, He chose them for salvation and wrote their names in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. The second group are those whom Christ will profess, " I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Of course God knows they will accept His mercy, because in the day of salvation He will change their hearts and wills, making them willing to come to Him that they might have life everlasting. He did not choose them based on anything good or evil in them, but simply because He will have mercy and compassion on whomsoever He wills.
No scripture says God changes hearts and wills. You are running in circles trying to say, sure God knows BUT....
'but' all around scripture all you want to but the bottom line is that calvinist and reformed theology throws God's foreknowledge out the window or excuses it as forelove only in order to hold up a sovereign dictating puppetmaster that gives himself glory through selfish arbitrary salvation apart from the will and volition of man that He himself gave according to his nature and image.




How do you reconcile the passage in 2Pe 3:9 telling us that it is the will of God that none perish, but all come to repentance with the fact that many do indeed perish? Is there anything that the Sovereign God of the universe wills or does not will that will not come to pass? Who are the us-ward that the Lord is longsuffering toward?

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.Let me ask you this....
Why did the Lord of the harvest delegate authority over the field (world) to man and tell him to pray for laborers because there aren't enough? If his will is that none perish why do many perish? Who else other than man has been told to labor and who has been told to pray for God to send more laborers because we are outnumbered? There's only two ways a sovereign God can have a sovereign will and that will not get done. One is that he has placed his will in the hands of another and they have failed. The other is that many refuse to repent.

The us-ward in 2Peter 3:9 is those that the letter was written to. So while you can say it was written as a warning to believers to make sure of repentance, how much more does the warning apply to unbelievers who are and were first told to repent? The focus of the entire book is repentance and the examples go all the way back to the beginning. If this were not true then Jesus would not have preached to the spirits in prison from the days of Noah. I mentioned that earlier, and you try this anyway?



Now we can argue about how many times it is said that Pharaoh hardens his own heart, but that does not change the FACT that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let the people go. Why? So that he "might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." God NEVER gave Pharaoh opportunity to "back down". No man can resist God's will, and it was the will of God that Pharaoh's heart be hardened...therefore he was hardened, and never given opportunity for salvation.He had mercy on Israel even though they deserved immediate destruction. That's the context in Exodus 33! He did this for the purpose and will of God that Christ come in the flesh through Jacob to offer mercy to all.
Pharaoh
Nebuchadnezzar
Cyrus

None of them could resit the purpose and will of God to bring Christ in the flesh into the world to be the Savior of man. God determined that from the foundation of the world before man was created. That is the context established in the beginning of chapter 9! The will, the purpose, the word of promise, Christ!!!! Eternal destiny is not mentioned. Only in Christ being mentioned as the word of promise -purpose of God, is eternal destiny mentioned.

You, are way out of context!!!

I suggest you read about the potter in Jeremiah 18 to correct your view of the potter in Romans 9.



Every man born in Adam is born with a nature to sin. Man does not become a sinner when he commits sin, men commit sin because he is born with a sin nature. There is none righteous, no, not one! We are altogether fallen, and will die in our sins unless God intervenes in the lives of some men, changing their wills and giving them a heart that longs to serve Him. If God did not choose to save some men in electing and predestinating them unto eternal life, then no man would be saved. Every man will remain in the dark, and never of themselves come to the True Light for life unless God supernaturally works in them through the power of the Word and Holy Spirit.If we are born with a nature to sin then Adam had a nature to sin which means the last Adam was born with a nature to sin and you have a BIG problem!
Yes, man becomes sin-ful in nature when he becomes full-of-sin. Imagine that! Sin is not a thing we are born with it is something we do. When born, no sin has been committed.

None righteous? Do I need to quote scripture of those God said was righteous? It means none righteous for salvation.

The Father sent the Son and draws by the Son and the Son draws by the cross. Not one verse says God changes the will and heart of any man to save them eternally. Not one. Zero!

BroRog
Jan 1st 2009, 02:48 AM
This is not the issue that Paul is concerned with in to 9 to 11. Instead, Paul is concerned with addressing how the destiny of national Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles are woven together in the purposes of God. Since most Israel remains in unbelief, Paul argues that it is indeed fair that most Jews are on the outside of the renewed covenant, even though are ostensibly the covenant people. In fact, he argues that God planned it that way.

Why not start a new thread in the Bible Chat forum specifically on the topic of Romans 9-11?

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 04:05 PM
My purpose was to expose the error of ignoring the personal accounts of these individuals. The text never says God made Jacob desire and believe the God of the covenant blessings or that God made Esau sell the birthright for a bowl of soup.
Fair enough. I was not really addressing this dimension of the issue.


This is why most people are in 'how we are saved mode' in Romans 9. Paul in fact is discussing personal salvation 1-8. It is the best explanation of the gospel in the NT, which is why the book is so loved by so many.
I have never denied that Paul is discussing how we are saved in Romans 1 - 8. My point was that there is much more on Paul's mind in these sections. He is making a covenantal argument as well.
There's no problem with this, the problem is with the the readers that cannot change gears and keep context.


The climax of Romans is chapter 8. In chapter 9 Paul begins his explanation as to why and how Gentiles are heirs with Jews.
I think your point is arguable. I believe that it is probably true to say that that Romans 8 is a climax in respect to God's treatment of how one becomes a member of the family of God and what that means. I would claim, however, that 9 to 11 is the climax of the covenantal theme that has been implicit (and at times, explicit) in 1 to 8.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 04:27 PM
Paul begins the chapter by pointing out that the "adoption as sons" belongs to the Jewish people. Many Bible students just skip right over the first five verses of Romans 9 and miss this key point. The question is, why didn't God give it to them?
.
.
.
So if the promises belong to Israel, and God has promised to soften all the hearts in Israel, why didn't he?

THAT is the question at issue in Romans 9 through 11. How is it that God made a promise to Israel, but not every son of Jacob is the beneficiary of that promise?

Has God's word failed?[/
This is not quite right. As has already been demonstrated, and thus far without refutation, Paul has just finished explaining how, in Romans 4 to 8, the promises ostensibly made to Israel have, in fact, come true for the Jew plus Gentile church.

So when Paul laments the sad state of the Jew and points out what their promises are, he is not setting up a treatment of this question:


So if the promises belong to Israel, and God has promised to soften all the hearts in Israel, why didn't he?

....he is instead, given what he has said in Romans 4 through 8, asking this question:

"If God made all these promises to the Jews, and they have come true for the church (and the Jews have in large measure missed out), how is God being faithful to his promises to the Jews?

If the issue were one of a treatment of an "elect" within Israel - that God only softened a subset of the hearts in Israel, why would he make this statement, which so obviously entails treatment of the inclusion of Gentiles in the family of God:

23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.

Paul is clearly making a case about how Israel's dire situation - her failure to actually attain the promises seemingly made to her - is part of God's plan to extend salvation to the Gentiles. It is precisely because God has hardened the Jews that the Gentile, formerly not God's "people" are now considered to be part of true Israel. The phrase "sons of God" is used in the Old Testament to denote Israel.

Paul's argument here, building on the case he has made in 4 to 8, is that the nation of Israel has been hardened, with salvific benefit for the Gentile.

If you had not read 4 - 8, and one stopped reading at 9:6, it might indeed be plausible to think that Paul is making a case about why not all Jews have been softened. But context shuts the door on such a possibility.

Besides, as argued in a recent post, Romans 9:7-8 immediately makes it clear that the "true" Israel of verse 6 is actually a Jew plus Gentile group.

BroRog
Jan 1st 2009, 05:19 PM
This is not quite right. As has already been demonstrated, and thus far without refutation, Paul has just finished explaining how, in Romans 4 to 8, the promises ostensibly made to Israel have, in fact, come true for the Jew plus Gentile church.

So when Paul laments the sad state of the Jew and points out what their promises are, he is not setting up a treatment of this question:



....he is instead, given what he has said in Romans 4 through 8, asking this question:

"If God made all these promises to the Jews, and they have come true for the church (and the Jews have in large measure missed out), how is God being faithful to his promises to the Jews?

If the issue were one of a treatment of an "elect" within Israel - that God only softened a subset of the hearts in Israel, why would he make this statement, which so obviously entails treatment of the inclusion of Gentiles in the family of God:

23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.

Paul is clearly making a case about how Israel's dire situation - her failure to actually attain the promises seemingly made to her - is part of God's plan to extend salvation to the Gentiles. It is precisely because God has hardened the Jews that the Gentile, formerly not God's "people" are now considered to be part of true Israel. The phrase "sons of God" is used in the Old Testament to denote Israel.

Paul's argument here, building on the case he has made in 4 to 8, is that the nation of Israel has been hardened, with salvific benefit for the Gentile.

If you had not read 4 - 8, and one stopped reading at 9:6, it might indeed be plausible to think that Paul is making a case about why not all Jews have been softened. But context shuts the door on such a possibility.

Besides, as argued in a recent post, Romans 9:7-8 immediately makes it clear that the "true" Israel of verse 6 is actually a Jew plus Gentile group.

Again, it is obvious that you have no interest in Paul's objective meaning, and make many of the fatal mistakes others have made as they attempt to force the text to fit a preconceived notion.

Your first mistake is to use the term "Jews" and "Israel" synonymously. The term "Jew" refers to the ethnicity of a particular individual among the sons of Jacob. The term "Israel" refers to the sons of Jacob corporately as a group.

Your second mistake is your ignorance of the promise God made to Israel as a whole and the significance of such a promise.

You have not done a wit of research, going back to read passages such as Hosea or you would know that the Hosea passage does NOT apply to Gentiles.

Finally, you simply do not appreciate the fact that God's promise to Israel was not conditional and so your silly statement that Israel failed demonstrates a poor attempt to force the text to say something entirely different. The fact that you have not recognized that this particular promise rests solely on God, is one reason why I cannot take your views seriously.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 05:50 PM
Your first mistake is to use the term "Jews" and "Israel" synonymously. The term "Jew" refers to the ethnicity of a particular individual among the sons of Jacob. The term "Israel" refers to the sons of Jacob corporately as a group.
You may well be right, but I do not see how my argument does not depends on such a distinction. Paul is not making a case about an "elect" within Israel, he is making a case about the nation of Israel as a whole has been hardened to the benefit of a "true" Israel constituted by Jew and Gentile.

Can you explain how my not dealing with this distinction undermines the content of my argument?


Your second mistake is your ignorance of the promise God made to Israel as a whole and the significance of such a promise.
What is my specific error - what exactly have I failed to understand?


You have not done a wit of research, going back to read passages such as Hosea or you would know that the Hosea passage does NOT apply to Gentiles.
You are again making statements about things that you cannot possibly know. You have zero evidence that I have not done any research.

I am well aware that the Hosea passage does not apply to Gentiles. But Paul is clearly transporting it into the Romans 9 context to make a point about Gentiles. Note the "as he says" of verse 25. This is clearly a device to tell the reader that he is about to expand upon the statement that he has just written. And the statement he has just written is a declaration that God has extended covenant membership to Gentiles:

23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.

Are you suggesting that verse 25 is not a clarification / amplification of verse 24? If not, why do you think Paul uses the "as he says" term?


Finally, you simply do not appreciate the fact that God's promise to Israel was not conditional and so your silly statement that Israel failed demonstrates a poor attempt to force the text to say something entirely different. The fact that you have not recognized that this particular promise rests solely on God, is one reason why I cannot take your views seriously.
When did I ever say that any promises were conditional?

1. Read in strict isolation, 9:1-6 could be used as the starting point for an argument that there is an "elect" within national Israel. But this is not really a position that can be sustained for the following reasons:

2. In chapters 4 to 8, Paul has systematically stated that the Jew + Gentile church gets the "Israel" blessings. So when Paul gets to chapter 9 and laments the state of the Jew, we properly understand that that question on his mind is not "how is it fair that God has not softened all Jews?", but rather "How is it fair that national Israel has missed out on the blessings that have instead gone to the church.

3. Paul clearly rules out the possibility of an argument about an elect within national Israel in verses 7 and 8 where he clearly describes this "true" Israel as Abraham's true descendents - a term which he has used in Romans 4 to denote the "Jew + Gentile" church. Unless Abraham has two different sets of true descendents, Paul cannot possibly be arguing that the (true) Israel of verse 6 is a subset of Jews who are "elect". Please tell me, how do you reconcile verse 7 and 8 with your claim?

4. Paul makes numerous statements in the middle of Romans about how the Gentiles have been brought into the family of God. These are entirely irrelevant to treatment of an "elect" within Israel. Unless Paul is deeply confused and incoherent. the far better explanation is to take him at his word in verses 7 and 8 when he is clear that he is talking about an "Israel" that contains both Jew and Gentile.

5. In verse 30, Paul offers us a "what then shall we say" conclusion where he talks about the Gentiles attaining covenant membership status. It would be highly incoherent for Paul to make an argument about an elect within Israel, and then say this:

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

How does such a statement about the Gentiles fit into an argument about an elect within Israel?

This conclusion works much better with the position that I am advocating - that Paul's basic argument is about how the nation of Israel has been hardened to the benefit of the Gentiles.

quiet dove
Jan 1st 2009, 08:23 PM
You guys are starting to take this to a personal level, knock it off. :)

BroRog
Jan 1st 2009, 09:00 PM
You may well be right, but I do not see how my argument does not depends on such a distinction. Paul is not making a case about an "elect" within Israel, he is making a case about the nation of Israel as a whole has been hardened to the benefit of a "true" Israel constituted by Jew and Gentile.

Can you explain how my not dealing with this distinction undermines the content of my argument?

By not maintaining the distinction, you import Paul's arguments from the beginning of Romans and all of Galatians into this section. And you have already assumed the appellation "true" Israel, as if such a thing were given, rather than deduced.


What is my specific error - what exactly have I failed to understand?


I already told you. The specific promise in view is God's promise to the house of Judah and the house of Israel that he would make a new covenant with them. In that promise, God clearly and unambiguously states that each man and his brother will come to know him. Not just a remnant of the nation. Until you take this promise seriously, you won't even begin to understand Paul's apology.


You are again making statements about things that you cannot possibly know. You have zero evidence that I have not done any research.


IF, you have done any research, you are ignoring it. Your posts so far reflect a total ignorance of Hosea for instance.


I am well aware that the Hosea passage does not apply to Gentiles.


Really, your previous post says otherwise.


But Paul is clearly transporting it into the Romans 9 context to make a point about Gentiles.


False. This is the flotsam that washes up on the shore. Had you taken Hosea's prophecy seriously, and not been mislead and deceived by cleaver men with an agenda, you would have realized that the translators have simply made a paragraph error. In verse 25 Paul picks up his original argument from where he left off earlier.

Clearly you have accepted the insane premise that Paul is allowed to reinterpret the scriptures to suit his arguments and that His Jewish detractors would be convinced by such a misuse of the Bible. Paul is not a 20th century Christian such that he feels free to make up stuff as he goes along. We can tell by the way he uses the scriptures that he affirms that they have an objective meaning.

And so, if the objective meaning of Hosea does not apply to the Gentiles then we must not assume that Paul is so sloppy as to find meaning where none exists.


Are you suggesting that verse 25 is not a clarification / amplification of verse 24? If not, why do you think Paul uses the "as he says" term?


Yes, verse 25 begins a new thought.


When did I ever say that any promises were conditional?


For some reason, you seem to think your words have no clear implications. If you say that Israel failed, you must assume that failure was an option and contingent on some condition she must meet herself.


2. In chapters 4 to 8, Paul has systematically stated that the Jew + Gentile church gets the "Israel" blessings.

False. First of all, Paul never uses the term "Israel" until chapter 9. The promises to Israel are not in view in chapters 4 to 8. Rather, the actual issue in those chapters is the Pharisaical affirmation that God is merely concerned with obedience to the law, without regard to a person's spiritual attitude. "We are justified by faith, apart from works of the law", he says. He makes God's promise to Abraham, not God's promise to Israel, the basis for Gentile inclusion in the household of God.


3. Paul clearly rules out the possibility of an argument about an elect within national Israel in verses 7 and 8 where he clearly describes this "true" Israel as Abraham's true descendents - a term which he has used in Romans 4 to denote the "Jew + Gentile" church. Unless Abraham has two different sets of true descendents, Paul cannot possibly be arguing that the (true) Israel of verse 6 is a subset of Jews who are "elect". Please tell me, how do you reconcile verse 7 and 8 with your claim?

One mistake you have made is to assume that Paul's equation is reflexive. That is, he clearly says that the Israel of the promise is comprised of the spiritual sons of Abraham, but he does not say that all the spiritual sons of Abraham comprise the nation of Israel. You are reading Gentiles into his statements.

Secondly, you failed to understand Paul's point in Romans 4 in which he DOES declare that Abraham has two sets of true descendants. Even as Paul is making an argument for a universal call to salvation, he does not obliterate the distinction between Jew and Gentile. While God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, you want to restrict Abraham to being the father of a single nation.

Nonetheless, Abraham is the father of at least two nations:

and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

The idea that Paul is making a case for an elect from among Israel follows from his examples, both of which sort between two physical sons of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac; and Jacob and Esau. If Paul's concern in these passages was to demonstrate Gentile entrance into promises made to Israel (which he isn't), then he would have spoken of Rahab and Caleb for instance.


Paul makes numerous statements in the middle of Romans about how the Gentiles have been brought into the family of God. These are entirely irrelevant to treatment of an "elect" within Israel. Unless Paul is deeply confused and incoherent.

Paul has changed the subject in Romans 9. In Romans 1-8, the focus was on the inner life of a person and why God universally responds to the inner life of the Jew as well as the Gentile. In Romans 9, Paul must deal with a salvation promise made exclusively to the nation of Israel as a people and a country. Different topic: different arguments.


In verse 30, Paul offers us a "what then shall we say" conclusion where he talks about the Gentiles attaining covenant membership status.

Verse 30 does not place Gentiles into a covenant status with God. Paul argued against the idea that the Gentiles must enter into a covenant in order to find salvation. He wouldn't turn around and make the opposite case here.

It would be highly incoherent for Paul to make an argument about an elect within Israel, and then say this:

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.


How does such a statement about the Gentiles fit into an argument about an elect within Israel?

Paul isn't comparing ethnic groups here; he is comparing approaches to how each group sought God's salvation. The Gentiles, who were never under a covenant closely associated with the Mosaic Law, had only one option: seek God's salvation through faith. On the other hand, national Israel decided to seek salvation through obedience to the Mosaic Law. A comparison between the two approaches reveals that one approach leads to God's salvation and the other approach doesn't.

To answer your question, his statement isn't intended to directly answer the question of an elect within Israel. Rather, his statement points out that Israel acted in a unified way in their quest for God's salvation. And while Gentiles had no other option, Israel had a choice between the inner life and the outer life and choice wrongly, but the choice was unified. They acted nationally, even if the choice was the wrong one.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 09:24 PM
You may well be right, but I do not see how my argument does not depends on such a distinction. Paul is not making a case about an "elect" within Israel, he is making a case about the nation of Israel as a whole has been hardened to the benefit of a "true" Israel constituted by Jew and Gentile.

Can you explain how my not dealing with this distinction undermines the content of my argument?


By not maintaining the distinction, you import Paul's arguments from the beginning of Romans and all of Galatians into this section. And you have already assumed the appellation "true" Israel, as if such a thing were given, rather than deduced.
You have not explained how not maintaining the distinction damages my argument. If my arguments that Paul is not alluding to material elsewhere in Romans are invalid, please tell me how they are invalid. All you have done to is raise a distinction - which I fully embrace by the way - and claim that my argument fails in light of it. We need to know why.

My position on "true" Israel is not controversial and I think it is on very firm ground. When Paul makes this statement:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

I simply use the term "true" Israel to denote the concept Paul is referring to in the reference to Israel that is underlined. Paul is clearly saying that there is Israel group and not all genetic children of Abraham are part of that group. That is all I am saying here.

Paul goes on to say this:

7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "(T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28163T))THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Clearly, Paul making an argument about the distinction between this Israel and those who are genetically descended from Israel. I happen to use the term "true" Israel to denote Israel (the underlining is intended to show that I am referring to the underlined Israel from verse 6).

The choice of phrase is irrelevant to the argument. All I mean by "true" Israel is what Paul refers to as Israel in verse 6. The distinction is what matters - "true" Israel (or Israel if you prefer) is a group whose constitution Paul is making an argument about.

And it is clear that Israel is a group constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 09:32 PM
What is my specific error - what exactly have I failed to understand?


I already told you. The specific promise in view is God's promise to the house of Judah and the house of Israel that he would make a new covenant with them. In that promise, God clearly and unambiguously states that each man and his brother will come to know him. Not just a remnant of the nation. Until you take this promise seriously, you won't even begin to understand Paul's apology.

But it is not as though (Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28162Q))the word of God has failed (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28162R))For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Your analysis cannot survive the implications of verses 7 and 8 where Paul makes it clear that this Israel he is talking about are true descendents of Abraham. Since it is clear from Romans 4 that the true descendents of Abraham include both Jews and Gentiles.

So unless Abraham has two "true" sets of descendents, the position that you are advocating cannot be correct. It might be plausible up until verses 7 and 8, but not after.


IF, you have done any research, you are ignoring it. Your posts so far reflect a total ignorance of Hosea for instance.
How can you possibly know what I am and am not ignoring?

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 09:57 PM
But Paul is clearly transporting it into the Romans 9 context to make a point about Gentiles.


False. This is the flotsam that washes up on the shore. Had you taken Hosea's prophecy seriously, and not been mislead and deceived by cleaver men with an agenda, you would have realized that the translators have simply made a paragraph error. In verse 25 Paul picks up his original argument from where he left off earlier.
First of all, your insulting and dismissive statements about my being deceived by people with agendas is not constructive. Let's debate the scriptures and leave the insults aside.

Here is the text:

23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God

You did not address my question: "Are you suggesting that verse 25 is not a clarification / amplification of verse 24? If not, why do you think Paul uses the "as he says" term?" Are you arguing that Paul makes his point about the inclusion of the gentiles, folllows it immediately with an "as he says" and intends to understand that what follows is an amplification of some other point?

No competent writer would so such a thing. When someone makes a point "A" about what God is doing in the world, follows it with an "as he says" and then makes a point B that makes sense as amplification of point A, then it is clear that this is precisely what is going on. In verse 24 Paul says that the Gentiles - previously considered on the outside of covenant promises - are now on the inside. He then writes "as he says" and makes a statement about a people that were once "not God's people" now gaining that status.

Clearly, verse 25 is an amplification of the material immediately preceeding it.


Clearly you have accepted the insane premise that Paul is allowed to reinterpret the scriptures to suit his arguments and that His Jewish detractors would be convinced by such a misuse of the Bible.
Paul discovers and expresses the true meaning that was there in Scripture all along. Thus, here in Romans 4, Paul reveals that Abraham's true descendents are constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

And, as has already been demonstrated, it is this Jew plus Gentile family that gets the "Israel" blessings (chapters 4 through 8). So, unless Paul has had a bout of amnesia by the time he gets to chapter 9, we know that the Israel he is talking about in 9:6 is indeed this Jew + Gentile family.

Paul is not re-defining anything - he is making an argument about what has been the case all along - the "true" Israel, the family of God in the sense that matters, has always been a group constituted by Jews and Gentiles.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 10:10 PM
2. In chapters 4 to 8, Paul has systematically stated that the Jew + Gentile church gets the "Israel" blessings.


False. First of all, Paul never uses the term "Israel" until chapter 9. The promises to Israel are not in view in chapters 4 to 8. Rather, the actual issue in those chapters is the Pharisaical affirmation that God is merely concerned with obedience to the law, without regard to a person's spiritual attitude. "We are justified by faith, apart from works of the law", he says. He makes God's promise to Abraham, not God's promise to Israel, the basis for Gentile inclusion in the household of God.
I have already provided detailed and comprehensive arguments as to why we should understand that all the Israel blessing in 9:4 have been ascribed to the Jew plus Gentile family. The relevant arguments are in posts 202 and 203. You have not addressed these arguments. If my analysis is incorrect, why not show the errors in those post.

Paul may not have explicitly used the term Israel till chapter 9, but his analysis of who the true descendents of Abraham are (Romans 4) makes it clear - "true" Israel is indeed a family constituted by both Jew and Gentile.

I agree that in 4 to 8 Paul is indeed making the arguments that you suggest, but he is doing more. As has already been argued in quite some detail in posts 202 and 203, Paul systematically ascribes the "Israel" blessings to the Jew plus Gentile church.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 10:22 PM
3. Paul clearly rules out the possibility of an argument about an elect within national Israel in verses 7 and 8 where he clearly describes this "true" Israel as Abraham's true descendents - a term which he has used in Romans 4 to denote the "Jew + Gentile" church. Unless Abraham has two different sets of true descendents, Paul cannot possibly be arguing that the (true) Israel of verse 6 is a subset of Jews who are "elect". Please tell me, how do you reconcile verse 7 and 8 with your claim?


One mistake you have made is to assume that Paul's equation is reflexive. That is, he clearly says that the Israel of the promise is comprised of the spiritual sons of Abraham, but he does not say that all the spiritual sons of Abraham comprise the nation of Israel. You are reading Gentiles into his statements.
I am not sure what you mean by your phrase "the nation of Israel". Are you referring to basically those "descended from Israel" as per verse 6.

In any event, Paul is quite clearly talking about the constitution of a "true" Israel. And in the following construct, it is clear that this "true" Israel (the underlined Israel) have the status of being Abraham's true descendents. And in Romans 4, we are told that his true descendents include Jews and Gentiles. So Israel, from 9:6 has to contain Gentiles:

But it is not as though (Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28162Q))the word of God has failed (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28162R))For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28163S))because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "(T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28163T))THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28164U))children of God, but the (V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28164V))children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

I am not reading anything in. I am merely submitting myself to Paul's logic:

1. In 9:6-8, Paul identifies the true descendents of Abraham as this Israel.

2. In Romans 4, Paul asserts that the true descendents of Abraham inlcude both Jews ans Gentiles.

3. Therefore, the Israel of Romans 9:6 must contain Gentiles, since Abraham can only have one set of "true descendents".

I realize that you think Abraham has two sets of descendents in Romans 4. I will get to that in the next post.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 10:40 PM
Secondly, you failed to understand Paul's point in Romans 4 in which he DOES declare that Abraham has two sets of true descendants. Even as Paul is making an argument for a universal call to salvation, he does not obliterate the distinction between Jew and Gentile. While God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, you want to restrict Abraham to being the father of a single nation.

Nonetheless, Abraham is the father of at least two nations:

and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
This analysis cannot survive Paul's overall theology where the church is in fact a single unified body with absolutely no internal sub-structure:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Paul could not possibly be more clear - Abraham is the father of one family.

Abraham is not being represented as the father of two nations in Romans 4. You seem to be arguing that since Abraham is represented as being the father of the Jews and the Gentiles, this means he is the father of two nations. First, this contradicts his statement in Galatians where it is celar that there is only one family.

Second, it does not follow logically otherwise. If I say that Fred is the father of A, B, C and that he is also the father of D, E, F. I am in no way asserting that Fred is the head of two families. This is possible, but not at all necessary. And we know from many things that Paul writes, that he considers Abraham to be the father of a single family of faith.

Here in Ephesians, Paul makes the case that the barrier which might otherwise divide Jew and Gentile has been dissolved and that, contrary to your claim about Romans 4, the family of faith is a single undivided one:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

And this text is further evidence that Paul understands the Jew plus Gentile family of faith to be the "true" Israel - note how he strongly implies that the Gentile is now a citizen of Israel and is no longer a foreigner to the covenants of the promise.

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 10:56 PM
The idea that Paul is making a case for an elect from among Israel follows from his examples, both of which sort between two physical sons of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac; and Jacob and Esau. If Paul's concern in these passages was to demonstrate Gentile entrance into promises made to Israel (which he isn't), then he would have spoken of Rahab and Caleb for instance.
I believe that verses 7 and 8 show that Paul cannot be making a case for an elect among Israel.

But putting that aside, Paul's selection of examples is perfectly coherent with the position I am advocating. As we know from chapters 1 to 8 (especially the last bit of 3 and all of 4), Paul considers that covenant membership is not determined by racial markers, specifically Torah. So in Romans 9, Paul starts out by saying that only a sub-set of ethnic Jews are "true" descendents of Abraham - members of true Israel. Hence the "national Israel" specificity of the Ishmael / Isaac and Jacob / Esau examples.

But that is only part of the story. As the rest of the chapter makes so clear, Gentiles are also being declated to be part of "true Israel":

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

drew
Jan 1st 2009, 11:08 PM
Paul has changed the subject in Romans 9. In Romans 1-8, the focus was on the inner life of a person and why God universally responds to the inner life of the Jew as well as the Gentile. In Romans 9, Paul must deal with a salvation promise made exclusively to the nation of Israel as a people and a country. Different topic: different arguments.
I would be interested to hear your case that Paul believes that God made "salvation promises exclusively to Israel". I think that Paul's position is that such promises were never made in the first place.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

This is not about "pelegianism" - the "law" here is the Torah. Paul is critiquing the Jewish view that justification in any sense comes through national privilege - being Jewish. So I do not think that the case can be made that Paul thinks that God ever made "salvation" promises to the Jews. I think the above text concisely expresses the position that Paul does not believe this.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:11 AM
My position on "true" Israel is not controversial and I think it is on very firm ground.

Actually, it is controversial and you have taken the wrong side.


When Paul makes this statement:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

I simply use the term "true" Israel to denote the concept Paul is referring to in the reference to Israel that is underlined. Paul is clearly saying that there is Israel group and not all genetic children of Abraham are part of that group.

I understand the temptation to lie to me, but I'm not going to be fooled.

This is what you really think.


And it is clear that Israel is a group constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

Now you see why I didn't even want to talk to you about this. I knew in advance that you were not here to discuss the text objectively. You already know what you want the text to say.


Clearly, Paul making an argument about the distinction between this Israel and those who are genetically descended from Israel. I happen to use the term "true" Israel to denote Israel (the underlining is intended to show that I am referring to the underlined Israel from verse 6).

The choice of phrase is irrelevant to the argument. All I mean by "true" Israel is what Paul refers to as Israel in verse 6. The distinction is what matters - "true" Israel (or Israel if you prefer) is a group whose constitution Paul is making an argument about.

And it is clear that Israel is a group constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.


Your appellation "true Israel" reveals to me that you have missed Paul's point entirely. First, if there is a "true" Israel, there has to be a "false" Israel, which is not the case. There is but one Israel.

Second, while Paul indicates that not all the sons of Jacob are Israel, you seem to think the issue surrounds the Genetic Children of Abraham, which is a big category mistake.

You are starting with covenant theology, or replacement theology which teach that the church has replaced Israel. Rather than allowing Paul to make his point, you want Paul to make your point, i.e. that "true" Israel is now a unification of Jewish and Gentile believers. You don't get this from the text, you import it from elsewhere.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:30 AM
But it is not as though (Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28162Q))the word of God has failed (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28162R))For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Your analysis cannot survive the implications of verses 7 and 8 where Paul makes it clear that this Israel he is talking about are true descendents of Abraham. Since it is clear from Romans 4 that the true descendents of Abraham include both Jews and Gentiles.

So unless Abraham has two "true" sets of descendents, the position that you are advocating cannot be correct. It might be plausible up until verses 7 and 8, but not after.

As I said before, you are not attempting to understand Paul's flow of thought in the slightest. And you are not attempting to take the OT seriously enough, since you think Paul is able to distort the OT to fit a bogus claim.

1. If you did not come to the text with your preconceived idea that the term "Israel" includes both Jews and Gentiles, you would need to take the term the way it is intended, i.e. the sons of Jacob.

2. Since you already demonstrated your view that Paul is allowed to distort the OT to suit any point he wants to make, then you are unconvinced by any attempt to find the objective meaning of the OT text. Why look for the objective meaning since Paul can make it mean anything he likes? For this reason, you don't accept the idea that God made a unique promise to Israel, which has nothing at all to do with the Gentiles.

3. Since you confuse the terms "Israel" with "Jew" you don't seem to understand that Paul has changed the subject in chapter 9. And whereas Paul is saying that the Israel of the promise will be a subset of the sons of Jacob, who are children of promise as Isaac was, your confusion has lead you to accept the doctrine that all the "true" sons of Abraham are Israel, which is contrary to his actual point.

4. In order to maintain your preconceived ideas about the Israel of 9:6, you must ignore verses 9:1-5, which you do.


How can you possibly know what I am and am not ignoring?


Get real. Everything is so transparent.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:33 AM
You did not address my question: "Are you suggesting that verse 25 is not a clarification / amplification of verse 24? If not, why do you think Paul uses the "as he says" term?"

You asked me a question? It sounded like an answer to me. Why did Paul use the phrase "as he says"? What would you expect someone to say who is quoting scripture? It doesn't mean anything more than that.


Are you arguing that Paul makes his point about the inclusion of the gentiles, folllows it immediately with an "as he says" and intends to understand that what follows is an amplification of some other point?

No, I'm arguing that verse 25 does not support his conclusion in verse 24. We already agreed that Hosea has nothing at all to do with Gentiles. Your idea that Paul is using a text that means one thing, to teach the opposite is clearly without merit and insulting to Paul. If you don't like being insulted, don't do it to Paul.


No competent writer would so such a thing. When someone makes a point "A" about what God is doing in the world, follows it with an "as he says" and then makes a point B that makes sense as amplification of point A, then it is clear that this is precisely what is going on.

But then, if we don't assume in advance that Paul performs bad exegesis or that bad exegesis is a good basis to support his statements, then we are constrained by the objective meaning of Hosea. Paul is not going to take a passage concerning wayward tribes of Israel to erroneously and without justification apply it to Gentiles. He is better than that.

If the passage from Hosea does not support verse 24, there can be only two reasons. Either Paul has changed the subject in verse 25, or we misunderstood verse 24.

If we know more about the history and future of Israel, we know several things. 1. Israel used to be a united country until the schism of Shechem, when ten of the Northern Tribes seceded from the union to form their own nation. 2. At the time of Hosea, God divorced himself from the Northern Tribes and began to refer to them as "not my people". 3. In the future, according to Ezekiel, God will reunify the Northern and Southern kingdoms (as illustrated by the two sticks). 4. A major aspect of this unification is to "call them out from among the nations where I scattered you."

This being the case, Paul's statement in verse 24 can be taken, not as the ethnic groups whom God called, but the location from where they were called. During Paul's time, the southern tribes were living generally in the land of Palestine, while the northern tribes were living abroad, known to History as the Diaspora. So then, to be called FROM AMONG the Jews is to be called from that LOCATION. And to be called from among the Gentiles (nations) is to be called from THAT location. Hosea's prophecy certainly supports this idea.


Paul discovers and expresses the true meaning that was there in Scripture all along.

If I was a Jew, listening to Paul make his point from my scriptures, I would not accept or be sympathetic to such bad exegesis. But Paul isn't, as you say discovering the "true" meaning of the text. His argument rests on the objective meaning of the text. And those who suggest that Paul makes stuff up are insulting Paul.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:34 AM
I have already provided detailed and comprehensive arguments as to why we should understand that all the Israel blessing in 9:4 have been ascribed to the Jew plus Gentile family. The relevant arguments are in posts 202 and 203. You have not addressed these arguments. If my analysis is incorrect, why not show the errors in those post.

Paul may not have explicitly used the term Israel till chapter 9, but his analysis of who the true descendents of Abraham are (Romans 4) makes it clear - "true" Israel is indeed a family constituted by both Jew and Gentile.

I agree that in 4 to 8 Paul is indeed making the arguments that you suggest, but he is doing more. As has already been argued in quite some detail in posts 202 and 203, Paul systematically ascribes the "Israel" blessings to the Jew plus Gentile church.

And now, by your request, I am shooting all those bogus arguments down.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:57 AM
I am not sure what you mean by your phrase "the nation of Israel". Are you referring to basically those "descended from Israel" as per verse 6.

In any event,

Stop right there. See what you just did? First you ask me a question. Then, without skipping a beat or waiting for an answer, you decide that my response doesn't matter. This qualifies as the evidence you seek with regard to my accusations that you are not interested in a dialog, or what the text actually says. You already have your mind made up.

Your post here is simply a restatement of your earlier posts, which did not address anything I said in rebuttal. Because "in any event" you are going to believe whatever you want to believe no matter what I say about it.

You quoted one point of my rebuttal, i.e. that Paul's equation was not reflexive, but you didn't seem to understand the term because your answer was simply to repeat yourself. Do you know what it means when an equation is not reflexive?

When we say that all yellows are colors, which is true, we are not also saying that all colors are yellow, which is not true. The statement, "all yellows are colors" is an equation in which the reflexive statement, "all colors are yellow" is not true.

You are saying that since Paul states that all members of "true" Israel are true sons of Abraham, the reflexive statement that all sons of Abraham are "true" Israel is true. But your claim that the reflexive statement is true has no basis in Paul's explicit statements of Romans 9, but rather you bring your conclusion with you.

Paul explicitly says, "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel", which is intended to create a subgroup of another category from among the sons of Jacob. This sorting from among all the sons of Jacob to find the sons of promise is born out by Paul's two examples: Isaac and Ishmael; Jacob and Esau.

Now, even though Paul makes his case that Abraham is the father of those Gentiles who share his faith, he does not make the connection you want to make between their status as saved individuals and their alleged inclusion in the nation of Israel.



3. Therefore, the Israel of Romans 9:6 must contain Gentiles, since Abraham can only have one set of "true descendents".

Again, it is clear from Romans 4 that Abraham has at least two sets of "true descendants".


I realize that you think Abraham has two sets of descendents in Romans 4. I will get to that in the next post.

Well, if you want to deny the obvious, why stop now?

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:10 AM
This analysis cannot survive Paul's overall theology where the church is in fact a single unified body with absolutely no internal sub-structure:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Paul could not possibly be more clear - Abraham is the father of one family.

While it is true that the church, both Jews and Gentiles in Christ, are united in a single church under Christ, the issue in Romans 9 is not the church; it's Israel.

Secondly, God's explicit statement on the matter contradicts your view that Abraham is the father of one family. Perhaps you know that God changed his name from Abram to Abraham on the occasion where he declared that Abraham would be the father of many nations and that all the nations would be blessed in him.


Abraham is not being represented as the father of two nations in Romans 4. You seem to be arguing that since Abraham is represented as being the father of the Jews and the Gentiles, this means he is the father of two nations.

No, I'm saying that we already know this about Abraham and that if Paul wanted to change our minds, he wouldn't have maintained the distinction between those who came to faith without circumcision and those who remain circumcised while sharing the same faith as their father Abraham. Paul doesn't obliterate the distinction.


And we know from many things that Paul writes, that he considers Abraham to be the father of a single family of faith.

Your words, not his.


Here in Ephesians, Paul makes the case that the barrier which might otherwise divide Jew and Gentile has been dissolved and that, contrary to your claim about Romans 4, the family of faith is a single undivided one:

Here we go. Do you not have an original thought?


And this text is further evidence that Paul understands the Jew plus Gentile family of faith to be the "true" Israel - note how he strongly implies that the Gentile is now a citizen of Israel and is no longer a foreigner to the covenants of the promise.


Again, you demonstrate your true intent to promote your replacement theology agenda. This is just what they believe. But if you actually understood what Paul was saying in Ephesians, you would understand that he is arguing the exact opposite point from the one you are attempting to make. But also notice that Paul unites the entire church under Christ as a New Man, not under Jacob as an old man. We are not fellow Israelites with them. We are fellow citizens in a new polus, not the old one.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:27 AM
But putting that aside, Paul's selection of examples is perfectly coherent with the position I am advocating.

No it isn't. Give me a break will you? Your view is an argument from silence. The examples Paul gives of the sorting process are devoid of any Gentile members. The fact that he finds examples from the OT in which biological sons of Abraham are sorted one from another, clearly supports the idea that God is choosing sons of promise from among Jacob's family line to be this "Israel" of the promise. Since this is his point, he does not present any examples in which God displays a preference between Gentiles or between a Gentile and a Jew.

Try to follow Paul's train of thought will you? He gives evidence in support of God's sorting from among Jews because this is what he asserts. In other words, first Paul makes an assertion. Then he backs it up with scripture. His arguments directly correspond with his assertions.

Your view that Paul is trying to include Gentiles in and among the Israel of promise does not make sense out of his explicit statements or his proofs. he cannot prove that God has included Gentiles in and among the Israel of the promise by citing two examples in which God is sorting from among Abraham's biological relations. And since he doesn't provide examples in support of THAT assertion, your interpretation is wrong. Paul is NOT trying to prove that the Israel of God is universal because his proofs do not support such a claim.

BroRog
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:30 AM
I would be interested to hear your case that Paul believes that God made "salvation promises exclusively to Israel". I think that Paul's position is that such promises were never made in the first place.

Read and take seriously God's word to Israel through Jeremiah. And don't put any kind of "Christian" spin on it. Take it at face value and resist the temptation to make it universal.

drew
Jan 2nd 2009, 04:36 PM
I understand the temptation to lie to me, but I'm not going to be fooled.
Bro Rog, why are you doing this? Why are you taking the low road? I have treated you with respect and not insulted you or questioned your motivations? Why not discuss the issues at not make entirely false and inflammatory accusations?

I have never lied to you on this board. Ever.

drew
Jan 2nd 2009, 04:50 PM
Bro Rog, your accusation that I am lying to you is both rude and demonstrably incorrect.

I had written this:


When Paul makes this statement:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israelwho are descended from Israel;

I simply use the term "true" Israel to denote the concept Paul is referring to in the reference to Israel that is underlined. Paul is clearly saying that there is Israel group and not all genetic children of Abraham are part of that group.

You responded with this:



I understand the temptation to lie to me, but I'm not going to be fooled.

This is what you really think.
And then you quoted me as follows:

And it is clear that Israel is a group constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.
And then you wrote this:


Now you see why I didn't even want to talk to you about this. I knew in advance that you were not here to discuss the text objectively. You already know what you want the text to say.
You seem to think that I have been inconsistent in my statement above.

I have not.

You seem to think that I have lied.

I have not.

Here is 9:6

But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israelwho are descended from Israel;

I have used the term "true" Israel to denote the concept Paul is referring to in the reference to Israel that is underlined. This is simply a naming convention - I could equaly have called in "Israel A". The point is that Paul is clearly saying, in 9:6 that the "Israel A" group exists and not all genetic children of Abraham are part of that group. There is no pre-conception at all on my part here - that is the plain sense of what Paul is saying - not all who are genetically Israelites are, in fact, members of this "Israel A".

My second statement is my assertion - that this "Israel A" - the underlined Israel - is a group that is constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

I have extensively defended that assertion - so, again, there is no matter of pre-conception.

And my statements are all entirely consistent with one another.

So not only have I not lied, I have been clear and consistent and supported all my points.

To repeat: it is entirely consistent to assert:

1. The group Israel (or Israel A or "true" Israel) is a group that some genetic Jews are not members of;
2. The group Israel (or Israel A or "true" Israel) is a group that contains genetic Jew and Gentiles.

drew
Jan 2nd 2009, 05:08 PM
Your appellation "true Israel" reveals to me that you have missed Paul's point entirely. First, if there is a "true" Israel, there has to be a "false" Israel, which is not the case. There is but one Israel.
There is indeed a "false" Israel, using your terminology. When Paul writes this:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel

He is asserting that not all "genetic" Israelites are members of this Israel. So if we usethe terminology convention of denoting Israel as "true" Israel, then, indeed there are those who are "false" Israel - those who are not Israel in the sense that Paul intends us to understand.


Second, while Paul indicates that not all the sons of Jacob are Israel, you seem to think the issue surrounds the Genetic Children of Abraham, which is a big category mistake.
Clearly I am not making a mistake. The issue very much involves Paul making a distinction between the genetic children of Abraham and this Israel category that he has introduced:

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but:

If you want me to agree that, in 9:6 in particular, Paul is making the more precise point that "not all sons of Jacob are Israel", I would be willing to go along with that. That works perfectly well with my position.


You are starting with covenant theology, or replacement theology which teach that the church has replaced Israel
I do not embrace replacement theology. Everything I have said is entirely consistent with a rejection of replacement theology. And I do indeed utterly reject replacement theology. Your characterization of my position is incorrect in respect to my embracing replacement theology.

And while I agree that Paul is deeply concerned with the covenant and is making a largely covenantal argument in Romans 9 to 11, you, of course, have precisely zero evidence that I "started" with a bias toward such a position.


Rather than allowing Paul to make his point, you want Paul to make your point, i.e. that "true" Israel is now a unification of Jewish and Gentile believers. You don't get this from the text, you import it from elsewhere.
I have repeatedly demonstrated scripturally that this Israel category from Romans 9:6 is indeed what Pau intended us to understand.

drew
Jan 2nd 2009, 05:40 PM
As I said before, you are not attempting to understand Paul's flow of thought in the slightest. And you are not attempting to take the OT seriously enough, since you think Paul is able to distort the OT to fit a bogus claim.
Again, why are you descending to this level? My arguments are what they are. I have never made such insulting and dismissive comments as you are now doing. Please stop.


1. If you did not come to the text with your preconceived idea that the term "Israel" includes both Jews and Gentiles, you would need to take the term the way it is intended, i.e. the sons of Jacob.
It will be clear to anyone who has been following this thread that I have actually made a rather extensive, scripturally grounded, case as to why we should understand that "Israel" contains Jews and Gentiles. Besides, you, of course, have no way of knowing what, if any, pre-conceptions I may have brought to this matter.

And I have just shown that Paul's argument is not only about the sons of Jacob, he clearly broadens the argument to include the sons of Abraham:

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but:

So Paul's argument is not only about the sons of Jacob - he expands to the Abraham level.


2. Since you already demonstrated your view that Paul is allowed to distort the OT to suit any point he wants to make, then you are unconvinced by any attempt to find the objective meaning of the OT text.
I have, of course, done no such thing. I have made it abundantly clear that Paul is not "distorting" the Old Testament, but is rather analyzing it and drawing the "correct" interpretation of it.


3. Since you confuse the terms "Israel" with "Jew" you don't seem to understand that Paul has changed the subject in chapter 9. And whereas Paul is saying that the Israel of the promise will be a subset of the sons of Jacob, who are children of promise as Isaac was, your confusion has lead you to accept the doctrine that all the "true" sons of Abraham are Israel, which is contrary to his actual point.
You have yet to explain how I confuse the terms "Israel" and "Jew". I am not confused about this.

While it is true that Paul starts his argument with an analysis of a "true" Israel within the sons of Jacob, he immediately expands the scope of his argument. This is readily seen by his statement:

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but:

and then Paul immediately makes it clear that he is also talking about Gentiles being part of the "true" Israel (that not all sons of Jacob are members of.)

nor are they all children (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28163S))because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "(T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28163T))THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28164U))children of God, but the (V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28164V))children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Paul is clearly mounting an argument about who Abraham's real descendents are ("true" Israel). And what has Paul said about Abraham's true descendents in Romans 4?

They include both Jew and Gentile. And Pual makes the exact same point here in Galatians:

Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Paul has expanded his argument of 9:6 about the composition of "true" Israel from the Jacob level to the Abraham level. This is clear from verse 7. Paul then clearly identifies that this "true" Israel is constituted by both Jew and Gentile by his use of the concept of "Abraham's true children".

We know from Romans 4 and Galatians 3 that Paul sees that Abraham's true children - his children in the sense that matters - are both Jew and Gentile.