Armenian view of Romans 9?

I did not realize that we were required to write a commentary on each and every chapter in order to make an argument. I'll be sure to hold you to that same standard from now on.

I don't have time today to write a full discourse on Romans 9 but luckly for you many have already done that adequately for us, here is a link if you are truly interested in understanding my perspective.

Adam Clarke's Commentary

 

Amen, brother! I too found that commentary on the web (but at a different website) and it has been extremely helpful.

 

Ransom,

Have you had an opportunity to read the commentary so you can deal with our arguments?

 

I said earlier about seeing the Arminians comment on Romans 9 in context:

Won't see it though.

Darn, I hate being right.

 

Uh?

 

Bartholomew,

I am a typical head nodding Southern Baptist, but in this I am going to give you a great big loud AMEN BROTHER!

God has been leading me through quite a bit of study on this subject and I have to tell you, he made my heart beat wildly with joy on reading your posts!

Thank You!
Tina

 

Uh?

As I predicted, you didn't even try interacting with the verses. You simply dashed off and hid behind Adam Clarke.

I have found Clarke of great value, but when he interprets verses 9-13 as referring to the nations of Israel and Edom rather than as individuals as Paul does, he falls flat, because such an interpretation renders Paul either contradictory or incoherent.

[ February 05, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Bartholomew,


the two groups today are those whom:

have the seed within them, signified by those following the law of God yet not progressing by faith to further salvation. (note lack of understanding) They accept by mental knowledge that Jesus as Christ outwardly, yet only in word. not faith.
little faith requires one to realize that Jesus has been crusified, resurrected and now is in heaven...somewheres out there.

the second group are those as you've pointed to as professing that Jesus has become their lord. that they have received revelation that not only has Jesus been resurrected from spiritual death and sits on the right hand of God.
but the follower recognizes this same spirit that has been resurrected namely jesus is the new spirit that God the father has given them and is within them.
the recognition that the law has completed its task of destroying the works of their old carnal flesh spirit delivering their old carnal spirit into Spiritual death.
the recognition that their NEW spirit has been resurrected from spiritual death. also signifying that the righteous spirit of the resurrected Christ has defeated the power of spiritual death and has been declared LORD OVER ALL SPIRITUAL POWERS.

take note of the title that Paul referrs to
"LORD JESUS"..not jesus christ. or christ jesus.


But LORD..big difference...

it referrs to the recognition of the death and resurrection of ones spirit.
It referrs to those WHO KNOW THIS BY ADMISSION OF PROOF WITHIN THEM. CONFESSION OF THE MOUTH.

when referring to romans 9-11. the rule still exists today.
vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. think about it. we're all physically born vessels of wrath UNTIL we're shown mercy.

we all have to live under the law.
we all have to have our carnal works of our old spirit destroyed.
we all have to be delivered unto spiritual death.

yet little do we know. Jesus was the first into spiritual death and destroyed it by filling it with his righteousness. when we enter into spiritual death (and all will) by accepting the consequences of the law (sin which brings spiritual death).

and when we get there. we're placed into eternal life of Christ. yet first we must all go through the law with its destroying powers towards our carnal flesh and its unrighteous works.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

which means the recognition of the spirit "within men" with proof..not just talkin about Jesus.

(now I guess you arminians are going to say, "what about that saving all flesh"?)

Me2

 

Oh, come on! Are you this volitile with everyone with which you converse? If I commanded you to do a verse by verse commentary of every chapter you quoted a verse from, I don't imagine you would comply. I suspect you don't know how to answer our arguments and have simply tried to divert attention away from that reality.

Just deal with our arguments or let's find another Calvinists on this board who is willing to but please stop this senceless banter.

How does refering to Jacob and Esau's representation of these nations render Paul either "contradictory or incoherent?" These men like Isaac and Ishmial before them are representative of nations throughout the OT, do you believe OT authors are contradictory or incoherent as well?

Plus, I have no problem appling Romans 9 to individuals, afterall that is what makes up a nation. That in no way changes or discredits the agruements we have made thus far. Like I said, you have only diverted the attention away from the issue.

 

Skandelon said:

Oh, come on! Are you this volitile with everyone with which you converse?

Volatile?

If I commanded you to do a verse by verse commentary of every chapter you quoted a verse from, I don't imagine you would comply.

Do you want a verse-by-verse exposition of Romans 9? Say the word. The only reason I haven't offered one so far is because this thread is about the Arminian interpretation of this passage, not the Calvinist.

How does refering to Jacob and Esau's representation of these nations render Paul either "contradictory or incoherent?"

What are those nations supposedly being elected to?

If it is national salvation, then Paul contradicts himself when he says Israel is not Israel after the flesh and God's promises actually apply to the children of promise (vv. 6-8).

If it is to national privilege or historical task or national-anything-else, then the analogy of Jacob and Esau completely sidesteps the question of the salvation of the Jews, which this chapter is supposedly about. Thus it is incoherent.

These men like Isaac and Ishmial before them are representative of nations throughout the OT, do you believe OT authors are contradictory or incoherent as well?

No. Do you suppose that just because I disagree with you on one particular point, I deny the entirety of Scripture? (Now who's being volatile? Not to mention a little extremist. )

 

the word.

And don't "hide" behind anyone else's work.

Some are being elected to receive the message from God which grants them entrance into covenant with Him. God shows mercy upon a nation by granting them entrance into covenant with Him. Every covenant has a requirement. Christ fulfilled it for us and we can enter it through faith in Him. It came first to the Jew and then the Gentile.

The covenant was revealed through Israel, not the line of Ishmael or Esau which Paul uses as proof to show that its not about being Jewish, but instead through Isaac, the child of the COVENANT (promise) entered by faith.

This chapter is addressing the problem that Gentiles are being shown mercy by being offered entrance into the covenant and they are believing, but the Jews are not. Why? Because they are being temporarily hardened! "That's unfair" they'd say!!! Who are you to question God, he do can do what he wants with his lump of clay? He made some for noble purposes, (ie apostles), and others for common use (hardened).

Like I said before this is not about saving some and condeming others. Its about showing some mercy and hardening others. There is a BIG difference. God can show someone mercy and they still go to hell and He can harden someone and they still go to heaven. Do you agree with this or not?

These men like Isaac and Ishmial before them are representative of nations throughout the OT, do you believe OT authors are contradictory or incoherent as well?

No. Do you suppose that just because I disagree with you on one particular point, I deny the entirety of Scripture? (Now who's being volatile? Not to mention a little extremist. ) [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

You got it. Have fun.

Romans 9 Verse By Verse (almost)

 

Here is Ransom's summary of Romans 9:

Now, if you can just listen and strive to understand my position that would be great.

This summary proves what I've been arguing all along that you refuse to address. All of the summary statments above seem to be saying that God has chosen to save some while passing over others who remained condemned. Right?

That is NOT what Paul is talking about. I can prove it.

In Chapter 10 and 11 Paul goes on to say that those who are hardened, those who had not been shown compassion, those God didn't choose, may still be saved. Read it for yourself:

As you can clearly see the same people you have considered being "non-elect" in chapter 9 may still be saved. How can that be if Calvinism interpretation of Chapter 9 is true?

Like I have said time and time again Romans 9 is contrasting those who are being shown mercy verses those who are being hardened, not those who are saved (elect) verses the ones being condemned (non-elect ) for how could a non-elect person be provoked to jealousy and persuaded by Paul to be saved? How could a non-elect not continue in unbelief and be grafted back in to the tree?

 

You have just confirmed what I have been saying about Arminians and Romans 9 all along. You cannot answer its plain teaching.

Either you atomize it and deal with individual sections isolated from their greater context, or you flee to some other passage that is more sympathetic to your position - in this case, chapter 11 (though of course chs 10-11 are simply extensions of the argument begun in 9).

Thank you, skandelon, for making my point so effectively.

 

AARRRRRGGGGG

You test my patience Ransom. CONTEXT. Romans 9 doesn't exist on an island. Romans 9 says "shows mercy" and "hardened" and I did deal with those terms as they relate to the ENTIRE CONTEXT. You refuse to deal with this argument because you CANNOT. You see that what I'm saying is beyond your grasp so you divert attention back to the fact that I have not complied with your wish for me to write a full commentary of Romans 9 eventhough I provided one previously written. You are not fooling anyone with these diversions and I'm not waisting my time with you any longer. I hope you can grow up a bit and learn to deal with issues that are above you.

Good day sir.

 

Skandelon said:

Romans 9 says "shows mercy" and "hardened" and I did deal with those terms as they relate to the ENTIRE CONTEXT. You refuse to deal with this argument because you CANNOT.

No, I didn't deal with it because it was irrelevant. Romans 9 says that mercy and hardening are based solely on God's purpose. Romans 11 says that the rejection of the Jews is not final and that God will again show the nation mercy.

Why? Because God will have mercy on whom he wills. There is no contradiction between Romans 9 and 11 as interpreted by Calvinists, despite your obviously deep desire to invent one.

 

You must consider youserlf fortunate that it happens so rarely.

 

Romans May be 'divided' into 3 major themes: Salvation By FAITH, Exhortation, and Epilogue.

SALVATION BY FAITH is divided into JUSTIFICATION and SALVATION which are each divided as "JUSTIFICATION":</font>

• "The Retribution of God Against Gentile and Jew", Chap 1-3:20</font>
• "FAITH and the judgment of God, Chap 3:21-31</font>
• The example of Abraham, Chap 4</font>

"SALVATION":</font>

• Deliverance from Sin and death and Law, chap 5-7</font>
• The Christian's Spiritual Life, chap 8</font>
• The place of ISRAEL, chap 9-11</font>

EXHORTATION, Chap 12-15:13
EPILOGUE Chap 15:14-End of book. So, then the theme of Romans 9 is the PLACE OF ISRAEL!

Emphasis throughout is mine. Therefore, in keeping with the theme that Romans 9 is part of a discussion of the place of Israel, It seems only correct that one must look at Israel as the Elect of God, for before Jesus, the Gentiles were not the "people of God"...None of them, so none of them could be "the Elect" until they, BY FAITH, become the children of God! It remains so today!

 

Yelsew2 said:

Therefore, in keeping with the theme that Romans 9 is part of a discussion of the place of Israel, It seems only correct that one must look at Israel as the Elect of God, for before Jesus, the Gentiles were not the "people of God"...

It is obvious that by "Israel" you mean the nation of Israel, by your contrast of them with the Gentiles. So please explain how Romans 9 could be dealing with the nation of Israel when Paul spends so much time at the beginning of the chapter saying that God's promises were not to the entire nation? Or that it was only a remnant of Israel that would be saved (v. 27) and that Gentiles, formerly not God's people, would become so (vv. 25-26)?

This is why I said treating the middle of Romans 9 as though it were dealing with Israel as a nation renders the whole chapter incoherent. It contradicts practically everything else Paul said on both sides.

None of them, so none of them could be "the Elect" until they, BY FAITH, become the children of God!

So when Paul said that it is not of him that willeth, he really meant it is of him that willeth. I see.

 

Ransom,

It is Paul who makes that distinction, not I. Look at verses 3-5. Then in verse 6 Paul clearly states that "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" Or said another way, "Not all have the "faith of Abraham, though they have their descendancy from Abraham."

You miss the whole point! What is the example of Abraham? It was by FAITH that Abraham was considered by GOD to be righteous! That is the standard that God established for BOTH covenants! Today is it BY FAITH THAT WE ARE SAVED! That is no different than in Abraham! There are many Israelites that do not have the faith of Abraham, and they are therefore "not saved", they are not "the elect", but merely men who's FAITH condition is seen by God as "empty, lacking, and none". Even so, All of Israel remains the chosen race of God! God will do to the whole lot of them as HE sees fit! Likewise, with the Gentiles, those who have FAITH, are saved, "the elect", those who do not have faith shall be disposed of by God in the manner that HE alone chooses. No man tells God what to do with him. Man sees the outside, but God looketh on the heart. God knows who his people are not by their nationality, lineage, or any other exterior marking, but by their FAITH in HIM.

GOD gives all men the opportunity to have faith in Him. Sadly most won't, but those who do become the children of God, "the elect".

Faith is not a work of man but a condition of man's spirit!