Featured Romans 9

I am glad you are welcoming me to discuss more with you.

 

2 points here...

cals see God predestination applying to the Elect, that they will be saved and glorified into image of Christ in the end...

Also see it in sense God has absolute sovereingty over all events, that History is going forward according to his plans and purposes...

Some future events are dertermined by him directly, others god uses our decisions to havethings happen, but he still controls and shapes the final outcome in the sense that he is in process of working all things together for the good of those of us now in christ jesus!

IF predestination meant everything fixed, why even pray?

jesus and all of His Apostles did, and they commanded us to also!

We believe in God ruling over all things, but NOT in fatalism!

 

There are many difficult passages in the Bible. Just as reading Matthew 24 leads some to jump to the conclusion that it is all future, when it is not, reading Romans 9 apart from the context through chapter 11 (it is one unit) can lead one to believe that Paul is emphasizing individual election, when he is not.

 

15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

And whom God will scrap, God will scrap. The verses don't help much, do they? Maybe God has not decided to have mercy on Baptists. Maybe God tosses a coin. Would not coin tossing be as "just" as anything else?

 

Romans 9-11 is not one subject but deals with three separate issues.

In Romans 9 Paul denies that Israel as a nation are saved people (Rom. 9:1-2) or else he would not be desiring their salvaiton even though they are the elect nation and have been given benefits no other nations has received (Rom. 9:3-5). National benefits do not produce individual salvation or national salvation.

Paul is specifically denying that physical birth as a Jew automatically makes one a promised child of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-13). This is clearly seen in the contrasting statements found in verses 7-8:

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.

Just because one is born a physical Jew does not mean they are "children of God"! Take note that "children of God" is being contrasted to "children of the flesh" and Paul is speaking of physical born Jews within the nation of Israel.

Children of God must be SUPERNATURALLY born as was Isaac by God and that requires a SECOND birth. Children of God must be chosen by God not according to foreseen works but according to God's purpose of election as was Jacob (Rom. 9:9-13).

Paul anticipates YOUR reaction to this in verse 14:

14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

That is exactly YOUR reaction if all true children of God are supernaturally born and chosen according to the purpose of election rather than by anything they do or don't do!

No such anticipated reaction would be necessary if YOUR intepretation of verses 6-14 were the correct interpretation would it???? Your interpretation would not draw that reaction by Paul.

Furthermore, he anticipates those readers who would say this applies only to Jews when he uses a GENTILE Pharoah to illustrate his point of divine elective grace (Rom. 9:15-18).

Additionally he repudiates those interpreters of his words who restrict the potter and clay to the nation of Israel as he purposely includes "gentiles" in verse 24 as inclusive in the potter's selection.

Indeed, YOUR interpretation is the very interpretation of the would be objector that Paul is characterizing in verses 14 and 19 and rebuking in verses 20-24.

Romans 10 deals with the preaching of the gospel in God's purpose of election. God has not only elected the persons he will saved according to His purpose of grace rather than foreseen good or bad works but he has elected the means to save them - through the preaching of the gospel.

Romans 11 deals with the future salvation of Israel as a nation. What God cut off is what God grafts in "again". God never cut off the "remnant" but has a remnant he saves in every generation from the Old Testament to the Second coming of Christ. God cut off Israel as a nation and as a nation He will save them at His return (Rom. 11:25-28). Cutting them off as a nation does not deny a "remnant" was not cut off and saving them as a "nation" does not mean a "remnant" will not be saved.

 

Chowmah, its a contrast between the Jews and Gentiles. The vessels fitted for destruction are the Gentiles. The vessels fitted for mercy are the Jews.


God's plan was predestined(Jesus being the sacrifical Lamb), not the individuals. We who are saved, are grafted into Jesus' election.

 

Somethings to consider

God Is Sovereign!

1sov·er·eign
noun \ˈsä-v(ə-)rən, -vərn also ˈsə-\
Definition of SOVEREIGN

a: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c: an acknowledged leader : arbiter
: any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom
Variants of SOVEREIGN

sov·er·eign also sov·ran
Examples of SOVEREIGN

<after the current sovereign dies, the monarchy may be abolished>
Ricky Martin, sovereign of Latin pop culture, is back. —Raquel Cepeda, Vibe, May 1999
Origin of SOVEREIGN

Middle English soverain, from Anglo-French soverein, from soverein, adjective (see 2sovereign)
First Known Use: 13th century
Related to SOVEREIGN
Synonyms: autocrat, potentate, ruler, monarch (also sovran)

Our God Is The ONLY Creator,of All things
There is No God But My God....And
There Is No God Like My God!

I have read Romans 9 (as well as all of Romans and all of the Bible many over the years. (O.K. I've mostly just skimmed all those 'Begats') and just tonight I saw something I have not seen before. Now, this probably means 1) I am the last man on earth to finally get this. or 2)It isn't there and I need to go to bed, wake up in the morning, and continue with my journey as usual. I suppose there is a number 3) These 'predestination people might have a point that I could do some more studying and thinking about. To be honest, I don't like number 3. The people are ok; I just don't care for the idea that I might be a predestined 'elect' one but my wife might not be. Crap! It really looks bad now that I have gotten personal with it!
Anyway, this is what went through my mind as I read this just a little bit ago. Now this is just a 'rough draft thought.' with much refinement needed. As much as I may want to resist #3 if I'm going to be honest, consistent, and true with the word of God, I must ask God to help me see things as they are.
I think that most non-predestination Christians [npc] believe and acknowledge Gods' sovereignty. At least pay lip service to what is an important teaching. This is because of the way predestination has been presented to them in light of the Fact of His sovereignty.
The Fact IS God will do whatever He wants to do!!!
We cannot stop Him. Plain and simple.
Who can argue with "and God hardened pharaoh's heart."
It is there!!! Romans 9:16 is there!
A portion of the real problem enters the scene when people encounter those who seem to misuse or misapply the "He will be whom He will be"
doctrine. Many predestination people [pp?]naw! how 'bout [pdp] come across as very sure that they, and all those who are pdp are saved. Many seem to be very certain and smug in there certainty, and to bad for those outside our camp.
Another part of the resistance to pdp teaching is not only "the I am chosen and you are not" sectarianism, but an almost "let us rejoice that most everybody is going to hell but I'm sure glad it isn't me.
Here's THE THING!! He Is Sovereign!!! He Will Do What He Chooses To Do!!! BUT....What has He Chosen To Do???
"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. John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Be assured that I am FULLY aware of the judgement, God is holy, broad road, few are chosen verses.
I think it is time to realize that Jesus was FULLY God as well as FULLY man. Not a God\Man or Man\God. Not 'His human side or the part of Him that was God.
He was and is GOD. Can we first grasp the One, Main Foundational doctrine we "say" we "believe" is that Jesus Was God living with US.
Now, think of His Sacrifice...for US!!!Does anybody really believe that God Came In The Flesh. That He Received a beating that none of us can even begin to imagine! He was TORTURED Because He SO LOVED US! The night before He Sweated BLOOD over the agony of the torture as well as the very thought that the next day He would experience the separation from the Godhead as He would become sin for us!! I have never been a Catholic, but it might do some of us protestants some good to go to a Catholic church sometime when they are not doing all the things that they shouldn't be doing, and ask someone to take us through the 'Stations ' having to do with what is called "The Passion of the Christ." Have them explain each station and what they think about at each stop. Will we be able to believe that He gave up so Much for us. Suffered the torture that He suffered to the point of crying out in agony"My God! My God! Why have You Forsaken Me!!?" All of this, planned from before creation. All of this in order to KEEP OUT as many,trick as many as He can?
Once we figure out that He will do whatever He wants to do, and that what he wants to do is save us, the only part of His creation that was created in His Image.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
This is what He Whom will do what He will do, will do.
I know this is getting really long, but stay with me for just a little longer.
We would be wise in realizing that we do not know who is not chosen. Since we do not have this knowledge we should stick with those that He has said He hardened, etc.
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.Rom 9:12
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 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.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that Showeth MERCY.
There are a few more mentioned in the Bible and since we are not God maybe that's where we should stop in our knowledge.
Also Notice Paul says "22 What if God...
I am not a Universalist. I don't especially think that these thoughts to consider are going to be what finally solves the free will vs predestination divide. (Actually I Could Bet money on it having no effect and you could not accuse me of gambling.)

This doesn't begin to answer the many points of difference on either side of this debate. I do not have the answers. I know this : My God is Sovereign.
My God Gave Himself for us because of His love for us. Jesus loves ME!!!
(Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11)
“As surely as I live,” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, oh house of Israel?”
The concept of "the elect" does not have to mean that others cannot choose to believe and follow our God.
If it were that cut and dried there would be no need for any judgement "seat" for God has already, before the foundation of the world judged everyone.

 

Sorry but Romans 9:24 denies it is a contrast between Jews and Gentiles but rather INCLUSIVE of both Jews and Gentiles.

Sorry, but Romans 9:16,18 destroy the idea it is not about individuals. Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Pharoah are all individuals and so is "he" that willeth and runneth. The "vessels" plural are individuals.

 

That's interesting. You know my interpretation when I haven't shared it yet. You might be prophetic. The entire discussion here deals with corporate entities. Romans 9-11 is one discourse, despite what you claim.
Paul didn't sit down to write a theological treatise for the elect of all time. He sat down and wrote a letter, not to you, nor to me, but to a first century congregation in Rome. He is dealing with what was going on at that particular time concerning Israel, and their role in God's purposes for history. It has to do with the status of Israel then, and why they were outside the covenant, and so does Romans 11. There is no future salvation of the nation of Israel. It's dealing with 1st century events.
The contrast is between Israel and the Church. Paul did not rip the Old Testament passages away from their context when he used them. God did not choose Isaac as an individual. The text demonstrates this: "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Isaac is here juxtaposed with Ishamael, who both serve as federal heads over a particular line of descendants of Abraham. God chose Isaac's line to bring forth Christ into the world (Vs. 5). In choosing Isaac, God chose Issac's line. This had to do with God's purposes in history, not salvation. The "son" in verse 9 is not Isaac ultimately, but Christ, of whom Isaac serves as a type. All those who are in Christ are chosen in HIM. He is the promise. He is the true Israel. He is the federal head. National Israel rejected Christ and were thus excluded (11:20). Chapter 10 deals with what led them to reject Christ, and that they had no excuse for they had heard the Gospel.
Paul is explaining 1st century events. It has nothing to do the salvation or damnation of individuals. God's purposes in history are discussed in chap. 9--to bring forth the promise, and through Him, to save the world. The same thing is discussed in 11 all over again.

 

Yes,in Romans Nine Paul does emphasize individual election, in fact thats His Main Thought there ! Rom 9:10-13

10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

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 )

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


The emphasize is on the Children, Two Physical Biological Sons of Isaac ! One elect, and the other is not, one Loved, the other not. Nations are not being discussed !

 

The entire passage considers Israel's national election and God's purposes in it. Paul's use of these Old Testament passages are viewed from a Hebrew, historical view, not a Greek philosophical one. Jacob and Esau are viewed as federal heads of peoples. Paul is using these examples to show God's choosing of Israel in bringing forth salvation to the world. You are ripping it out of the wider context. It has nothing to do with Jacob going to heaven and Esau going to hell.

 

fw

Emphasize is on Individual election ! National Israel was not God's Chosen People, but only some Individuals in her, thats the point !

 

No, that is your point. Only Christ was elect. God's purpose in election was to bring Christ into the world, and salvation to the world. You cannot ignore the context of the Old Testament passages. The 1st century readers knew them very well. Physical descent does not make one a part of Israel. But Paul's point is that it has always been that way, even in the natural. The Samaritans descended from Israel, and Ishmael and others descended from Abraham, but they were not considered Israel. The context is how God's word to Israel has not failed. Israel was God's elect in the Old Covenant. That election was not salvific, but historic. Their purpose was to carry out Abraham's promise by bringing his "seed" into the world. God put up with Israel so that He might bring forth Christ into the world, and thereby show mercy to the world. It is in this way that God prepared in advance the vessels of mercy. God planned that He would have a people, the Church. Only Christ is truly the elect one in a salvific sense. Thus, Paul is demonstrating how that Gentiles can be considered Israel, while Jews are not. He says the same thing in chapter 11, and the rest of Romans also is concerned with this issue. It has to do with the 1st century situation of Gentiles being accepted, while Jews were excluded, not whether God picks Sam to fry in hell, and Susie not to.

 

Amen Finishedwork! You are a breath of fresh air. Welcome!:thumbs:

 

It does not take a prophet to figure out your position and I did predict it accordingly as your post demonstrates. You are simply wrong. You present a philosophical response while I gave contextual evidence which you did not respond to nor can respond to if you deal with it honestly and objectively.

Hot air, no evidence as ususal with this common but wrong interpretation! I spelled out the contextual development correctly and the problems with your interpretation and you did not address a single statement I presented.

Please point out where Paul even used the term "church" in Romans 9-11. I will await the text you find containing it! Don't you think it is a little strange that you cannot even find the very term in a single text in Romans 9-11 that undergirds your imaginary interpetation????

Even according to your common but wrong interpretation what you are saying is technically wrong. God did individually and personally choose Isaac over Ishmael and it is easy to prove that from the Old Testament record and from Romans 4:18-22.

You are missing the very point of Paul's argument in Romans 9:7-8. Historically the Jews beleived that since they were blood line descendents of Abraham, "born of blood" that in and of itself made them the children of promise. Paul is repudiating that current thinking. Paul regards them as lost and in need of salvation (Rom. 9:1-2) and he is denying the NATIONAL PRIVILEGES obtain person indivdiual salvation (vv. 6-8).

You are correct that he is a type but he is type of what Paul defines in verse 8 in the PLURAL "children." In verse 8 he sets forth the principle and in verse 9 he illustrates that principle by Isaac. From whom did you learn exegesis?????

Your system breaks down in the use of Pharoah and in the direct insertion of "gentiles" in verse 24 in the potter and vessels illustration in contrast to the plural "Jews" rather than using the term "Israel." If you position had any merit he would have used the term "Israel" in verse 24 instead of the plural "jews". That fact the he uses the plural "jews" demands that the potter illustration is dealing with INDIVIDUALS not nations!

 

Romans 9-11 does indeed consider Israel in God's purpose of redemption. However, Romans 9 is devoted to denying that natural born Jews are the "children of promise" but only twice born elected Jews are children of Promise. The same hold true with Gentiles - they must be twice born chosen by the potter (v. 24).

You are interpreting exactly opposite of Paul's intention and thus falling right into the very historical Jewish interpretation which Paul is condemning not condoning. He is denying that election as a nation equal salvation for individual Jews. He is asserting that within national Israel there is the elect twice born Jewish children of promise.

Ishmael is not even mentioned by Paul. Isaac, Rachael, Jacob and Esau do not represent national entities any more than Pharoah does and the term "gentile" included in the potters illustration demolishes that theory completely. They are types but they are types of the very point Paul sets forth in verses 7-8 "children of the flesh" VERSUS "children of God." If Paul had NATIONS in view he could have plainly omitted all the individuals named and kept it generic by using the terms "Israel" and "Egypt" and "Gentiles". However, he did not and so your view has no contextual basis.

The wider developmental context is that God is not finished with Israel as a nation as you suggest but he will eventually save "all Israel" as a nation at the second coming of Christ. However, for the present, Being a Jew and being a child of promise is not one and the same - that is the message of Romans 9. Salvation is through faith in the gospel of Christ on a personal level - that is the message of Romans 10. God's setting aside of Israel is not to be intepreted by GENTILES that God is finished with Israel as a Nation - that is the message of Romans 11.

 

You need to go back to school and learn how to exegete a text and context. You are simply mouthing empty philosophical speculation above. Anyone can mouth such philsophical speculation. Prove it exegetically! That you have not done and I suggest you cannot do it and so that is why you resort to speculative philosophical theology.

 

fw

No thats Paul's point, and Christ and His Church, the Body are the Elect.

Christ is the Head of a Body, there is no such thing as a Bodiless Christ ! Col 1:18

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Now back to Romans 9:

Now as we continue the Romans 9 study, we see that Paul in explaining what seems to be a perplexity as to why the Jews are being excluded , most of them, as individuals of that nation. He explains that not all Jews from that nation are truly Jews [ spiritually] Rom 2:28-29

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But 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.

This is the beginning of unfolding a mystery that the ethnic jew did not know or understand..



So, Gods promises to the jews have not fell to the ground as Rom 3:1-3

1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?



The unbelief of the non elect national jews, does not nullify the Faithfulness of God to the True Spiritual Jew, of the election of grace, The Israel of God. All the Abrahamic Promises are sure to all the seed Rom 4:16

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,




No sir, God is being Faithful to Israel but just not the Israel you think..



He shows a distinction in Isaac Rom 9:7-9

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 Sarah shall have a son.


Then he goes on to show another distinction and sovereign display, this time with Isaacs Physical offspring, because he had just said that the covenant promises were in Isaac, but there is still more..



Isaacs offspring Rom 10-13


10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

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 )

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Here Paul continues his thought and explanation of seemingly the Jews being left out overlooked in salvation.

The Nation Israel was only Typical of God's Israel which was Spiritual, only a few of the Spiritual Israel lived in National Israel ! This is what Paul is beginning to explain !

 

Wow, someone finally nailed it. Very good post, and explanation.

The 'predestination' in this chapter is all about the establishment of the NT Church, NOT about individuals. God predestined the Church, and caused many events to take place to make it happen.

That is all this chapter is about.... the Church, not the members. To expand it to include the members simply takes truth to such an extreme that it becomes a lie.

John

 

Hahahaha. You might try reading books written by someone besides John MacAuthor. Expand your horizons a bit. Then you wouldn't feel so insecure when someone disagrees with you. I suppose you also think that "coming in the clouds" is speaking of Jesus busting through the sky and that Antichrist is some big ugly guy who sits in a rebuilt temple. You ignore the Old Testament to your own detriment. My intention was to show that there are other non cookie cutter perspectives.