Featured Romans 9

In the above post, I again provide the readers with some contextual based reasons why the THEORY that some have presented simply will not fit Romans 9-11.

If you disagree, then please do provide some rational and contextual based reasons why my arguments are wrong and I promise you I will seriously consider the basis of your arguments and respond.

 

Paul was explaining the apparent contradiction that God has forsaken Israel because many of them were unbelievers and openly rejected Christ the Messiah. How ever Paul was saying, no, God's Faithfulness to Israel as a Chosen People has not Failed, because all who are of Israel [ Spiritual] are not of Israel Nationally ! Rom 9:6

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

The promises of Rom 9:4

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;

Those promises were not for all of National Israel, but only for a Remnant that was in National Israel, So Paul says in Rom 11:5-7

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

The elect remnant received the promises to Israel, such men like Zacharias Lk 1:67-72

67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

Also Simeon Lk 2:25-32

25And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel [Not National]: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

26And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

27And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

28Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

32A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.


So Christ's coming in the Flesh fulfilled all of Rom 9:4, and the Election [ Spiritual Israel] received the promise and obtained that which they sought after, God's Salvation to His People Israel as Simeon states in Lk 2:30

So Israel, the One that belongs to God, and not the one that belongs to ethnic jews, God is Faithful to her, always has been without fail, but the non elect jews were blinded !

 

We agree with each other more on this passage than we disagree. However, I believe you are missing a very significant point. He is talking about national Israel in verse 6. Those "which are OF ISRAEL" refers to the nation of Israel not some spiritualized "Israel." He is denying that mere physical birth as a Jew, a part of national Israel, means that you are a SAVED ISRAELITE. So the verse should be UNDERSTOOD to mean:

"6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all the promised seed of Israel, which are of National Israel:"

I had no intent to add to God's Word, I placed the terms in italics for a reason.

 

the bib

Yes, one of them is National Israel, the other ne is not, its the Church or the Israel of God !

I made that distinction in the very first paragraph :

I quote:

Yes, one Israel [National] is comprised of ethnic israel of the Flesh, the Other is Spritual Israel of Faith ! For faith is born out of the Spirit not out of the Flesh !

I do not what you are trying to say with this statement, however Israelites who are merely Israelites by Natural Birth have no Relationship with God, only those Israelites who are born of the Spirit belong to Israel of God and are Israelites indeed as Nathan Jn 1:47

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

I agree with that !

However, the promised seed of Israel is comprised of both jew and gentile believers that belong to Christ Gal 3:29

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

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[Jewish Believers], but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham[Gentie Believers]; who is the father of us all[Jew and Gentile believers who are Israel of God]

 

Biblicist, Actually, no, I did not take this to be a debate. I responded to Chowmah’s post, and then you jumped all over it. Nevertheless, for those who are undecided I will post my response.

First, Paul is writing to a 1st century congregation that was a mixed multitude with a great knowledge of the Old Testament. That was their Bible. When Paul mentions certain things, they would have been well-acquainted with them. By mentioning certain Old Testament ideas, the entire context of the idea is taken into consideration. As Dodd states, “Old Testament passages were understood as wholes, and particular verses or sentences were quoted from rather as pointers to the whole context than as constituting testimonies in and for themselves. At the same time, detached sentences could be adduced to illustrate or elucidate the meaning of the main section under consideration. But in the fundamental passages it is the total context that is in view, and is the basis of the argument.”

In Romans 9:1-5, Paul has “unceasing anguish” over Israel’s lost state. It is clear that this is natural Israel, for he calls them “those of my own race.” Interestingly, the Jerusalem Bible reflects that God Himself was sorrowed over Israel’s state. Just as God in Christ wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), God in Paul did as well, by rendering it “What I want to say now is no pretence; I say it in union with Christ – it is the truth – my conscience in union with the Holy Spirit assures me of it too.”

Then he says “Theirs”. Who is he referring to? Natural Israel. The same Israel that crucified Christ. The same Israel that rejected the Gospel. The same Israel he was weeping over. He says “Theirs IS” not “was.” At the then current time, Israel was still very much in the picture. The Old Covenant had not yet come to a complete end. As Fee points out, “Israel’s law constituted a covenant between God and his people…” Hill and Walton correctly state “many Israelites of the Old Testament could be identified as God’s people by virtue of their faith in Yahweh. But their divine election and the divine covenant made the Israelites the people of God only in a revelatory sense. By this we mean that God chose them as his instrument of revelation. God revealed himself to the world through Israel…” Ultimately, Paul identifies them also as God’s means to bring forth Christ into the world (Vs. 5). Israel was God’s covenant people, and individuals in the community were only elect via their participation in the community, and not apart from it.

Thus, especially in a time when Christianity was not considered a separate religion, but was part and parcel with 1st century Judaism, and also that the mindset was one of corporate identification with the group, rather than the much more modern notion of individuality, when Paul references this term “Israel,” the audience would have understood the term involving all its connotations. That is, for Paul and his readers, Israel was not a piece of dirt in the Middle East. Nor was it simply their present day state occupied by the Romans. For Paul and his readers, “Israel” meant God’s historical, covenant people, as opposed to all other peoples. Thus, at that time, Paul could correctly state in chapter one, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”

The discourse as a whole then is more eschatological than soteriological. Paul’s issue throughout Romans has been to defend Gentiles being a part of God’s covenant people. This was an especially important subject then. The Jews despised Gentiles, and the Gentiles wondered why Jews were rejecting their gospel, even to the point of persecution. Here Paul lays out the why and how of Israel’s lost state, and the Gentiles’ inclusion in the covenant.
The term “children of God,” also translated “sons of God” (same word), also has this idea. Thus, Thayers correctly states that the Old Covenant meaning of this term was “the people of Israel" as especially dear to God.” The term “Sons of God” refers not to some fictional fallen angels, but to the sons of Seth. From Seth through Shem constituted the Shemites. Thus, the correct reading is the marginal reading in the KJV for Gen. 4:26, “then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord.” The Sons of God constituted God’s chosen line, which became the progenitor for Israel. The same pattern is in view here…

 

Paul states an idea that his 1st century readers would have readily acknowledged when he says, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” This is the best translation. Since descendants of the person of Abraham are mentioned in the second part, the descendants of the person of Israel (Jacob) should be understood in the first part. Paul is not jumping to the Church here. Rather he is leading up to it. Descendants of Israel do not necessarily constitute God’s covenant people. Nor does descent from Abraham. This was a prevalent 1st century attitude in Judaism, as is shown in John Baptist’s comment “And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Matt. 3:9 NIV). Moreover, the Samaritans claimed to be part of the covenant community, which is reflected in the statement of the Samaritan woman, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” To which Jesus responded “You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” Yet, after the exile it was readily accepted that only those who had a Jewish mother would be accepted as Jews proper, excluding the Samaritans.

Paul explains what he means in that not all children of Abraham constitute the covenant community. He tells us this plainly by saying, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Just as in choosing Seth through Shem constituted God’s chosen line, Paul reiterates that Abraham through Isaac constituted God’s chosen, covenant people. Isaac IS a federal head. It is through Isaac, his line, that Abraham’s descendants would be reckoned. He then explains it more by saying “In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

The children of the promise constitute the sons of God…God’s chosen line. What is the promise? Paul tells us! Isaac was the promise. Children of “the promise” are the children of Isaac. Now we see the continuation of the sons of God. He then does the same thing with Jacob and Esau, viewing them as federal heads of their respective lines. He does this to support his claim that not all who descend from Abraham are his children. These are the “children of the flesh.” This is reflected when God said to Abram, “"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." Paul uses this same exact idea in Galatians. He states “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise” (4:23). In Galatians, as here, the two sons represent two covenant peoples (plural).Thus, a contrast between Old Covenant Israel as opposed to the New Covenant Church. In the same way that God chose Isaac, and thus all who were in Isaac were chosen based on HIS election, so also is Christ. Prophetically, He is the son spoken of. Sarah's son is Christ just as David's son is Christ. Those who are in Christ are therefore counted as descendants, just exactly like those who were in Isaac were counted as descendants.

The fact that God chooses Pharaoah again demonstrates His choosing for His purposes in history, not salvation or damnation. Even those who were not a part of the chosen line could join the chosen line and thus be elect, such as Ruth. Even Pharoah is a federal head of the Egyptians. The text states that “I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them. And I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen” (Exo. 14:17 NIV).

What is Paul’s point in all this? His point is that God used Israel to bring salvation to the world. He repeats this same idea in chapter 11. This was accomplished by their rejection of Christ and His crucifixion. This is where Paul is leading. All of this reflects on Paul's statement made in chapter 4 where he ultimately views Abrahams' fatherhood spiritually, as did Christ. He states that Abraham is the father of believers, whether circumcised or not. The children of the flesh and the children of promise reflect the natural born children of Abraham, juxtaposed with his spiritual children. That is, those who believe. He states this same idea in Galatians 3-4. Out of the lump of Israel, there are two peoples: Those who believe, and those who do not. God uses those vessels who do not believe as his instruments for common use, while those who believe are used by God for noble purposes. Moreover, we were ALL vessels of wrath before believing (Eph. 2:3). A vessel of mercy is a vessel of wrath that has been destroyed and remade. Therefore,if God can reject Esau's line and accept Isaac's He can also reject those unbelieving Jews and accept the Gentiles.

Thus, as the CEV reads, "God wanted to show his anger and reveal his power against everyone who deserved to be destroyed. But instead, he patiently put up with them. He did this by showing how glorious he
is when he has pity on the people he has chosen to share in his glory. Whether Jews or Gentiles, we are those chosen ones."

Paul refers to Israel specifically in this way in 1 Thes. 2:16, "Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." and Jesus' several rebukes in the Gospels, especially in Matt. 23 in which He states the kingdom will be taken from them and given to the Church, and that God's judgment would fall upon them.

In Romans 11, Paul continues this theme. Israel was hardened and broken off because they did not believe. Through this, Christ's death was accomplished and the result was the salvation of the world. Now that this had been accomplished, the time for Israel's hardening was coming to an end. Thus, Paul said, "Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

 

finishedw

No it was not over national Israel, but only for a remnant in that nation which were of his race. Paul understood that only a small remnant of ethnic jews would be saved ! Rom 9:27-29

27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

Also Rom 11:6-7

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

He is not concerned about the rest who he knew was blinded ! So your theory is shown to mbe error from the start !

 

finished

“

You are wrong, He is transitioning to the Church, for the Church as isaac was, are the Chidren of promise Gal 4:28

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

 

I don't have any problems with anything you have said up to this point. However, below you make a giant leap into fantasy land.

Absolutely wrong in every way. Romans 9:1-2 is all about soteriology not eschatology. Romans 9:3-5 is the basis that should have led Israel to a soteriological conclusion in Christ. Romans 9:6-8 is supremely all about soteriology not eschatalogy. Romans 9:9-33 is soteriological in every sense of the word and Romans 10 is SUPREMELY soteriological in every sense of the term. Only in Romans 11 do we really enter into a eschatalogical view of Israel but again in regard to soteriology.

For example.........?????????

What you are saying is not true to the context of this epistle within the churches at Rome. The Jews within the Roman congregations were not despising the gospel although they may have had a second class citzen view of their gentile fellow believers (Rom. 14-15). What you are saying may have been their thoughts toward lost Jews outside the congregations in Rome.

Absolutely false! The Law covenant was never designed to justify, save or grant eternal life to anyone (Gal. 3:17-21; Rom. 3:19-20). The covenant of grace or the "everlasting covenant" of redemption was always proclaimed both prior to and after the cross (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; Rom. 3:24-4:22).

Absolutely false! Jesus chided Nicodemus as a teacher of the Jews being ignorant of the new birth (Jn. 3:10) BEFORE the cross, BEFORE Pentecost! The terms "children of the flesh" versus "children of God" has nothing to do with the Old Covenant at all. Indeed, the old covenant obtains no improvement upon the "children of the flesh"! Paul's point is that the Jewish elect seed are SUPERNATURAL born as typified in Isaac rather than merely "children of the flesh" as in Ishmael. They are the elect according to God's purpose of grace before being born into this world typified by Jacob rather than by Esau as plainly stated in Ephesians 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2 Thes. 2:13. They are not a product of the human will or human energey (Rom. 9:16,18) but they are divine products by new birth and divine choice.

Amazing! The truth stares you in the face! You admit it and then deny it in your interpretation of Romans 9:7-8. Your interpretation of the "sons of God" in Genesis is correct thus demonstrating it never had any OLD COVENANT bearing at all but was the SPIRITUAL STATUS according to the everlasting covenant of grace (Heb. 12:20). That is exactly its bearing in Romans 9:7-8.

 

Whoa! Your not grasping what he is really saying. God promised Abraham that he would be given TWO kinds of ethnic seed. He would be given a PROMISED SEED from his own body and he would be given a PROMISED SEED from the nations and NEITHER included all from either National Israel or from the Gentile nations.

Here he is speaking only of the promised seed from NATIONAL ISRAEL (v. 6) and none other. He does not even refer to a promised seed from the Gentiles seed until verse 24. It is NATIONAL Israel from when a PROMISED SEED would fulfill His promise to Abraham from out of his own "flesh." However, not all from His flesh would be that promised seed or the JEWISH Israel of God according to promise.

Look at your own statement carefully! All who are descendent from Israel are JEWS according to "the flesh" but not all Jews according to "the flesh" from Israel are the "children of God" or the promised JEWISH Israel of God.

Look at your own statement carefully! They are all his descendents according to "the flesh" but not all who are his descendants "according to the flesh" are the children of promise or the "Israel of promise" or NATION of promise. No gentiles in this promised nation as the promised seed from the Gentile Nations were neither flesh decendents from Abraham or the promised NATION from Abraham's own body but were from the NATIONS and not all after the Gentile "flesh" were the NATIONS promised to Abraham but only those gentiles born "of God."

Not so! You simply ignore the fact that verses 7-8 sets forth the principle he intends on developing and defending. Isaac and Jacob and Esau are simply illustrations to develop that one principle. The principle is that among ETHNIC ISREAL there are two different kinds of Jews - those who are simply "children of the flesh" versus those who are SECOND BORN Jews or "childen of God."

You almost got it. Mere Natural Descendents of Abraham do not constitute the promised Nation of Israel at all. Only SECOND BORN decendents of Abraham constitute the PROMISED NATION OF ISRAEL! Gentiles are not part of it at all in any way shape or form but are of the secondary promise to Abraham concerning Gentiles but not Jews.

 

bib

Thats False, Gentiles are part of Israel, the Seed of Abraham Gal 3:29

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That's Israel, Abraham's Seed ! You think Paul is speaking only to jewish believers here ? If you do, you are absolutely wrong !

You are also promoting racial distinctions in Christ, which is spiritual blessing, that is more error !

 

Biblicist...uh-huh. Your view of Isaac typifying the saved is closer to Arminius! Yet it is absolutely subjective. You have to piece together things outside the present text to get there. Keep on reading your Piper and Hal Lindsay books instead of history and the Old Testament. You'll do fine.

 

More on Romans 9 !

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



Isaacs offspring vs 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.

Even though he showed a sovereign choice made by God with Abraham's children, he shows one now with Isaac's children, who unlike Ishmael, not having the same mother, some may think, well yeah, God choose Isaac because Ishmael's mom was a heathen handmaid. but Paul dispels this thinking by showing Gods Sovereign choice of Individuals by the same parents, both mother and father..


This choice rested solely on God's "He whicheth calleth", and not on foreseen good or evil of the individuals..or works of the individuals..

This call proceeds from Gods eternal purpose alone..



2 Tim 1:9

9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Notice here in the above verse the phrase not according to our works and its relation to calling and in Rom 9:11 and the phrase not of works and calling.

It should be plain to see, that calling is in regards to salvation according to Gods eternal purpose. and election!

God made a choice of Jacob over Esau to be the recipient of the Covenantal love he displays in salvation !

No one can have a claim on Gods love in Christ Jesus, its only at Gods discretion. Esau was excluded from the Covenant love of God, so scripture says he was hated.. If God loves you He saves you..


Rev 1:5

5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Gods loving one and washing away their sins are one and the same. They are married and cannot be separated, what God has Joined together let no man put asunder, lest thou be found a liar..

He does this because he paid the price for our sins, so God The father is pleased and pacified, now nothing is left but for the loved ones, the washed ones, the forgiven ones, is to hear the good news of it, thats the gospel !

People don't be fooled by the false teachers saying this passage is speaking of nations and not individuals, that cannot be further from the truth, Jacob and Esau first and foremost were individuals ,and this what was happening affected them individually ! Mal 1:2

I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,

 

Good lord Savedbymercy! You really have no idea what Malichi 1 is saying do you? How has God loved THEM? ANSWER: IN ISAAC. By loving Isaac God loved them. He is their federal head!!! Here's another one...how did Levi pay tithes to Melchizadek even though he was not yet born?

 

Yes ! Mal 1:1

2I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,

3And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness

Yes, God Loved only the Children of Promise, not the children of the flesh. The only way God would love a ethnic jew is if they were a child of promise or a person of faith or an elect. If not, they're nothing but another seed of the serpent on their way to hell !

All Believers, whether jew or gentile, arew Children of Promise as Isaac was Gal 4:28

28Now we, brethren[Jew or Gentile Believers], as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

They are the seed of Abraham Gal 3:29

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I go into that Truth somewhat here !


See this thread post 49

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72692&highlight=union&page=5

 

Savedby...try reading the text in its original context. There's nothing about any "children of promise". You are once again reading the Old Testament with a New Testament set of glasses. That is why you come to faulty conclusions. The original audience had the Old Testament for their Bible! They did not read things into the text. Malachi was speaking orally to Israel. It wasn't written down till later. Malachi's original audience was the returned Israelites from exile. You should read some good commentaries.

By the way, Calvin disagrees with You. He says "We must at the same time bear in mind what I have already said — that this singular favor of God towards the children of Jacob is referred to, in order to make them ashamed of their ingratitude, inasmuch as God had set his love on objects so unworthy. For had they been deserving, they might have boasted that a reward was rendered to them; but as the Lord had gratuitously and of his own good pleasure conferred this benefit on them, their impiety was the less excusable. This baseness then is what our Prophet now reprobates."

 

finished

Sure it is. This is Romans Nine. Have you ever read Rom 9:8

8That 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.

And this seed [singular] is comprised of both jews and gentiles 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[ jews], but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham[gentiles]; who is the father of us all[Both jew and gentile believers],

Too bad you have been deceived !

 

So we see from The study so far of Romans 9, that Paul is dispelling the Ideal that the national jews have been forsaken and Gods promises to them nullified. Paul teaches that:


#1 That the salvaic promises were not for national israel in the first place, but spiritual Israel Rom 9:6


#2, Then He Illustrates that not all of Abraham's descendent's were heirs of promise by the story of Isaac Rom 9: 7-9


#3, he continues his teaching, that not all of Isaacs children are included in the covenant promises with Jacob and Esau Rom 9:10-13



#4, Rom 9:14 Paul anticipates the humanistic response, knowing that what he teaches gives the sense that God chooses who He wants to have salvation, regardless of the actions and deeds of men. hence making it appear that God is unfair; so you know Paul is teaching a Calvinistic view point about unconditional election and not the popular freewill Arminian viewpoint which is anti scriptural !

 

Now lets look at how Paul meets with this humanistic thought of God being unrighteous..vs 15-18



15For 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.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For 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.

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.



He answers by referring back to a declaration God made years ago to moses,when moses asked or inquired about seeing Gods Glory..Ex 33:17-19



17And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

18And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.



19And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.



Gods respond was the declaration of His Great I AM personage in Stating That He is absolutely sovereign in and of Himself, and He will Dispense of His graciousness [grace] and mercy on whomever He will..



This is Gods Glory , His absolute prerogative to do as He pleases. His God-Hood is His Glory.. No one has a right to expect or have any claims on Gods grace or mercy..



Gods Glory is His Indisputable sovereignty over all His creation. doing whatever he pleases..



Dan 4:35


35And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?



Ps 115:3

3But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.



God given faith bows to this revelation of Almightiness..Heb 11:6

6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


So then salvation or favor with God is not because of vs 16, who wills it, who earns it, who puts forth an effort to get it, but solely on Gods Absolute prerogative on whether or not He wants to be merciful to an individual..


notice vs 17 He uses pharaoh as an example as to one God in His purpose for this man, not to show mercy to, but in fact one to whom He chooses to show His power and wrath upon.



And let me say this dear reader, you could be one as Pharaoh was , that is one who God has raised up to be an example of His wrath..



God showed His power in hardening pharaohs heart..



Lets look at some scriptures !



Ex 4:21

21And 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.



Gods power hardened pharaohs heart.. Notice the words I will [ Gods Sovereignty, Glory]



It does no good reader to say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart as in Ex 8:15



15But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite; he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.



because he hardened his own heart because God had decreed that his heart be hardened as the Lord said..



Note: We do Just as God decrees for us to do..

 

No, my position is based upon a very careful exegesis of Romans 9:1-26. Paul is not talking about any kind of GENTILE Israel but Israel "according to the flesh" and simply distinguishing the true JEWISH Israel of promise from those Jews "in the flesh."

Not all of NATIONAL Israel is the SPIRITUAL Israel of promise but only those of NATIONAL Israel who are second born or born of the Spirit in addition to born "after the flesh."

The Israel in Romans 11 is not the "remnant" Israel nor is it the "gentile" elect but Israel as A NATION that was "cut off" as a nation and which will be grafted back in "again" as A NATION after the fullness of the gentile elect be brought in. At that point in history God will return to Israel as A NATION and they will be saved AS A NATION but right now as a nation they are "enemies of the gospel for your sakes" and will continue to be enemies of the gospel for your sakes until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. IN the meantime in every generation God is still saving a JEWISH "remnant" and has always in every generation as far back as Elijah has saved a JEWISH "remnant" to prove that He is not yet finished with Israel as A NATION in His purpose of redemption.