Romans 9

You are afraid to submit your interpretation to the test of God's Word. The test is objective, simple and clear.

It should be obvious that the true interpetation will have the same objections Paul anticipates and will use the same responses provided by Paul to those objections.

Here is the dirty little secret you don't want to be exposed. Your interpretation voices the exact same objections that Paul anticipates from those who oppose his interpretation in Romans 9:6-15. You would not dare defend your interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 by the responses Paul provides as those very response have no bearing your interpretation and YOU KNOW IT. Indeed his very responses expose your position as false doctrine. That is the dirty little secret and that is why you are afraid to simply allow your interpretation to be tested by this simple, obvious, objective test provided by Paul. So you will run from it and you will continue to run from it and so will all that hold your interpretation.

 

You don't understand what I asking! I am asking you either to take YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 and test it by the two criteria provided by Paul in Romans 9:17-24 OR take my position which you characterize as double predestination/calvinism and test it by the two criteria provided by Paul in Romans 9:16-24. This test is a no-brainer - it is obvious - it is objective - it is easy.

For example in regard to your Finnyism philosophy put it to the test given by Paul. How do you do that? Take the anticipated objections in Romans 9:16-24 and see if they would be the kind of objections that others would pose against your Finneyism philosophy. If they are then your philosophical position harmonizes with Paul's and thus it has passed one test.

Second, look at Pauls responses to those anticipated objections. Are these responses necessary to defend your Finnyism position? If they are then your position passes the final test and you have proven that your philosophical interpretation harmonzies with Paul's as these responses are necessary to defend his interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 as well. In other words , your position HARMONIZES with both the anticipated objections and responses.

Now, if you really want to prove my interpretation is not in agreement with Paul's interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 it is EASY and SIMPLE to prove it is not. Apply my interpretation to the same two tests. For example, would the anticipated objections in Romans 9:16-24 be the same objections thrown against my interpretation. For example, would my interpretation make you say "that makes God unrighteous, unjust" and how can God blame us for sin if God's will determines all things, for who can overturn His will?.

For example, would the responses given by Paul to these two objections harmonize with my interpretation or oppose my interpretation?


This is a no brainer test because it is so easy, so obvious and so objective, just compare and see which view harmonizes and which contradicts.

Your interpretation denies Romans 9:6-16 demands unconditional election whereas mine does - Sooooo, would the anticipated objections given by Paul defend your view or my view? Your interpretation denies absolute sovereignty of God in salvation by unconditional election - Sooooooo does Pauls responses to these anticipated objections defend your position or my position?

There is no trick here. Just compare and see if your position harmonizes or compare my position and see if it harmonizes. What could be more easier and objective - if the shoe fits, it fits and if the shoe does not fit it does not fit - it is just that simple.

 

You don't get it. I am not asking you to write a book or a commentary. You have already said my interpretation is wrong. All I am asking is for you to put it to the objective test provided by Paul in the context to see if Paul agrees with you. Do the anticipated objections given by Paul harmonize with your objections to why my position is wrong? Do the responses given by Paul to these antipated objections harmonize with my responses to the same objections? Here is your chance to PROVE my position is not what Paul is teaching. Here is your chance to PROVE your philosophy on human nature harmonizes with the Apostle Paul.

Here is your opportunity to prove that Augustine's position on human depravity is wrong and yours is right!

You will not submit either one of our views to this simple test because it would EXPOSE you as teaching falsehood!

 

Where is this supposed post that disproves my interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 and how do you think you disproved it? Did you disprove it by this simple contextual test or by your philosophical opinions?

 

Your right, I did not see this post. However, it is fairly simple to prove your argument is false.

1. You fail to see that it is your interpretation of Romans 9 - that National election of Jews is what makes them the children of promise is exactly what Paul is repudiating.

Your interpretation was the argument of the common Jew. We are the children of Abraham, we are the chosen nation, and therefore we are "the children of promise" and we are "the children of God."

Paul's rebuttal begins by admitting that yes, the promises were made to Abraham and his children - the nation of Israel, (vv. 1-5) however, these promises are obtained on an INDIVIDUAL basis as the children of God are like unto Isaac who was the PROMISED child and not children merely by fleshly birth as were the other seven children of Abraham (Ishmael, and the six sons of Keturah). The real children of God are SUPERNATURALLY born like Isaac:

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
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.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

So your interpretation is the very one that Paul is repudiating as it is the interpretation of the Jews.

This is why Paul brings Jacob into this argument as well. Being the children of God or child of promise is not determined by physical birth or "good" and "bad" works one may do in their life. It is determined by God's "purpose of election." On the other hand, the Jews beleived it was determined simply by being physically born into the line of Abraham and performance of good works over bad works that defined one as "children of promise."

Jacob proves this to be untrue. He was chosen by God before His birht and before doing any good or evil. It is apparent because he was more evil than Esau was from birth and yet God chose him over Esaw. Jacob tried to supplant Esau in the womb and come out first and after birth tried to supplant Jacob by deception, lying, bargaining with all the evil that was in him and yet God BEFORE birth chose Jacob.

Jacob and Esau are representative of two peoples - the chosen by God in spite of themselves and the unchosen by God. They represent the two original seeds - the "seed of the woman" - Chrihst and all in him and the "seed" of the Serpent. They represent he that is born after the Spirit and he that is born after the flesh. He represents the elect and Esau the non-elect. Jacob represents those that God's love is demonstratively bestowed upon for eternity and those whose God's wrath is demonstratively bestowed upon for eternity.

Now, obviously you don't agree with my interpretation BUT you cannot support yours from the context as your interpretation is the very interpretation Paul is refuting. Put your objections to my interpretation to the test. Paul anticipates the following objection to his exposition in verses 6-13. Is this the same objection you would have to my interpretation as well?

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

Now, would your response to such an objection in defense of your position be the same response Paul gives in Romans 9:15-18 OR would this response be keeping with my position?

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.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
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.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Now, would the objection that Paul anticipates in verse 19 to what he says in the above verses (Rom. 9:14-18) be also your objection to what Paul says in verses 14-19 and therefore a valid objection by those who know and reject your position?

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Is this an objection you would make to Paul's words in verses 14-18 as well OR is this an objection that I would make to his position? Which is it?

Finally, would you respond like Paul in verses 20-24 to some one who made the objection in verse 18 in order to defend your interpretation of Romans 9:6-13 and 15-17? Or would this response be in keeping with my interpretation of these same passages? Which is it?




as well to my position or would

Paul anticipates another objection to what he says in Romans 9:15-


and Romans 9:14

 

In other words, you are unable to repudiate my exposition in the last post where I proved your interpretation is in error?

You did not address a single evidence I presented! Is this supposed to be a two-way dialogue?

I proved by the context that Paul is repudiating the very interpretation you give as that is exactly what the pious Jews believed. They believed that national election obtained individual guarantee for them to be the "children of promise" by natural birth coupled with good works.

However, this is exactly what Paul is denying. He is denying that national election equals individual guarantee to be a child of promise.

He repudiates this by expressly stating that not all Jews physically born are children of promise - thus national election does not obtain individual guantee to be "the children of God."

Individual SUPERNATURAL BIRTH as in the case of Isaac characterizes all the children of promise.

Individual ELECTION prior to physical birth not according to works but according to grace characterizes all children of promise.

ABSOLUTE PROOF is that Romans 9:15-24 deals with INDIVIDUALS not NATIONS.

ABSOLUTE PROOF is that Romans 9:24 applies the potters analogy to INDIVIDUALS not the NATION of Israel versus the NATION of Edom but INDIVIDUAL calling of both Jews and Gentiles as "the children of God."

You cannot possibly disprove this IF immediate context is the final authority for interpreting this passage.