Armenian view of Romans 9?

What point of yours have I not answered?

Just because I didn't address all of your exgesis doesn't means anything. Have you considered that I might agree with some of your exegsis? I only pointed to the points of contention, which you have still yet to address. Are you afriad to see how Romans 9 relates to chapters 10 and 11. The hardened Jews of chapter 9 are expounded on in the following chapters, why do you want to avoid that issue.

Your avoidance of this issue is quite revealing. I must have hit a nerve.

 

But please don't expect him to address it if you refer to any of the context surrounding Romans 9.

 

OK, I'll bite,

What is Paul teaching in Romans 9?
What is the message of 9:1-5?
What is the message of 9:6-13?
What is the message of 9:14-24?
What is the message of 9:25-33?

Does the message end there?

What about 10:1-4?
What about 10:5-13?
What about 10:14-21?

Let's not quit there because the context of Paul's message continues into chapter 11.

What is the message of 11:1-10?
What about 11:11-15?
What about 11:16-24?
What about 11:25-32?
and 11:33-36?

The truth is, if you isolate only on Chapter 9, you miss the truth of Paul's message! By missing the truth of Paul's message you can make Romans 9 say just about anything you want it to!

So how about it Ransom? Here's chapter 9. let's deal with it. I took the verse separators out of the text so that we won't concentrate on the division of the text in the place of the thoughts expressed. This is Romans 9 extracted from the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) with Apocrapha.

So let's get with it! What is it that you are so sure supports your doctrine of election or whatever it is that you are trying to establish?

[ February 08, 2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew2 ]

 

So how about it Ransom? Here's chapter 9. let's deal with it.

WARNING WARNING WARNING
MAXIMUM FRUSTRATION LEVEL EXCEEDED
WARNING WARNING WARNING

I have ALREADY dealt with Romans 9.
I have ALREADY run through the ENTIRETY of Romans 9, point by point.
I have ALREADY answered ALL the questions regarding the teaching of Romans 9 that you have posed.
I have ALREADY posted this link THREE times already:

Romans 9 Verse By Verse (almost)

Do you have some sort of mental illness that prevents you from reading that Web page?

When we have dealt with Romans 9, THEN we can deal with Romans 10. When we have dealt with Romans 10, THEN we can deal with Romans 11. Cardinal Rule #1 of reading: Begin at the beginning, continue until you reach the end, then stop.

In other words: Cut the garbage and deal with the text that is the subject of this thread. Do you get it yet, or do you want me write it out for you in crayon?

 

Skandelon said:

Just because I didn't address all of your exgesis doesn't means anything.

Translation: You didn't deal with any of it.
Zero.
Nada.
None.
You did exactly what I said you would do: flee to some other passage.

Deal with Romans 9.
Then we will deal with Romans 10.
I have no problem with Romans 10.
I like Romans 10.
I can post an exposition of Romans 10 at a moment's notice.
But I'm not going to.
Because you keep running away from Romans 9.
So we haven't finished with Romans 9.
After Romans 10 we can deal with Romans 11.
I have no problem with Romans 11.
I like Romans 11.
Writing a similar exposition of Romans 11 will take time.
But I can and will do it.
But I'm not going to.
Because you keep running away from Romans 9.
So we haven't finished with Romans 9.
And we haven't finished with Romans 10.

Clear?

 

Ransom, you add your extra-biblical beliefs into the text almost at the very beginning of your treatise. You say,

So far so good. Clearly Paul is talking about groups. But then you go on to say,

Paul is not talking about individuals. You are reading your theology into what Paul said, and thus invalidating the scriptures. Obviously all groups of people are composed of individuals. But this passage is about groups, and you have nowhere shown that Paul has switched context from groups to individuals.

I don't expect you to agree with these scriptures, so there's probably not much value discussing them with you.

 

Practice what you preach Ransom!

You said start at the beginning of the discussion (chapter 9) and continue without stopping to the end of the discussion (Chapter 11:36).

But no, you want to stop with Chapter 9 because that is the only place where you find "support" for your doctrine of Election. Well Chapter 9 through 11 deal with "the place of Israel" and not with the gentiles, of which you are one.

So if you will walk your talk, we can get to an understanding of what Paul was saying and what it means.

 

I'm finished with you, Yelsew. You had your chance.

I have stated my case, and I have offered you every opportunity to interact with it. You have run to other passages of Scripture. You have hemmed and hawed. You have obfuscated.

But the one thing you have not done is deal with anything I have said about Romans 9.

I think this thread has served its purpose; it has become painfully clear that the Arminians have no meaningful interpretation of this passage. Rather, I think they know what it means and are terrified to admit it.

 

Harley4Him said:

I don't expect you to agree with these scriptures, so there's probably not much value discussing them with you.

Sorry, you have already squandered your credibility by falsely accusing me of rejecting Scripture in another thread. I have no interest in debating with someone who cannot demonstrate basic honesty.

 

And you sir, are terrified because you will not accept Romans 9 in its context! It seems you fear being revealed as the holder of False doctrine.

 

Ransom,

This absolutely amazes me. You claim I have not addressed one single point of your post on Romans 9 simply because I refer to Romans 10 and 11.

NOTICE I WAS ADDRESSING YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT CHAPTER 9 BUT I WAS USING INFORMATION IN CHAPTERS 10 AND 11 TO REFUTE YOUR INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 9.

So to say that I haven't addressed one single thing in your post is an outright lie and you know it to be so. I combated your interpretation of Romans 9 by showing how it can't be true in the following chapters. Tell me, how is that not dealing with Romans 9?

Do you think that anytime someone uses scripture to interpret other scripture that they are not dealing with your arguements, or is it just this issue? Are you telling us that you never go to other parts of the scripture to help you understand another part?

We can all see right through your diversion tactics. You are not fooling anyone. Just admit you don't know how to respond to my arguments and lets get this over with.

 

Your angry response to the clear teaching of scripture indicates that you are in serious need of spiritual renewal. I will pray for you, that your next spiritual renewal will be with Jesus.

Your failure to dispute that you added you own extra-biblical words to Paul's is interpreted as an admission that you acknowledge your act. Please repent of this act.

 

Skandelon said:

This absolutely amazes me.

I am "absolutely amazed" with your obsessive insistence that the proper way to read Romans is backwards.

I guess we have lost the Post-It note that was attached to the letter when the Romans first received it:

 

That's not nearly as amazing as your obsessive insistence that the proper way to read it is through the lens of your extra-biblical inserstions deriving from your false tradition.

 

Ransom, I'm tired of hearing your whining so I respond directly to your comments. I apologize to you all for the length of this post but this guy leaves me no other choice but to deal with EVERY comment he has made:

I agree. (btw, when I say I agree I'm assuming I am understanding your meaning)

Israel, to this point, were thought to have been the "chosen nation" but Paul is showing them that God's choice is not limited to desendants of Abraham, but in fact "God can have mercy on whom he wants to have mercy." Yes, even dirty rotten Gentiles. God chose to show mercy not only to Jews, but to the Gentiles as well. How? By offering them entrance into the covenant by faith. Therefore its not by those who "will and run," meaning those who pursue righteousness as if it is by the law (ie Jews), but only those who pursue it by faith will gain it (ie Gentiles).

I have no problem appling Romans 9 to individuals, that is what make up a nation isn't it? The children of the flesh are those who live in the flesh and the children of God are those who live by faith.

What were Isaac ancestor chosen for? Salvation? They were chosen to carry the lineage of the Messiah and the message of God to the people. They were chosen for a "noble purpose" others were chosen for more "common purposes." For example, Paul was chosen to be an apostle, a noble purpose. His Jewish buddies were chosen to be temporarily hardened to fulfill the prophecy of the crucifixition and the ingrafting of the Gentile nation, this is a more common use.

Agreed. But chosen for what? Salvation? Or chosen to beget the messiah and carry the message to the world? Common purpose or Noble purpose?

Chosen for what?

Chosen for what?

Promise is another word for covenant. The covenant of Grace is entered through faith. The "Children of the Promise" are the children who hear the message and enter by faith.

Yes, because it has to do with their faith and not inheritance.

The diatribe whine that Paul is anticipating here is one made by a Jew, not an Arminian, as Calvinists seem to presume. A Jew would find the notion that Gentiles were being shown mercy by being allowed entrance into the covenant as being completely unfair. Remember the story of the workers in the vinard who worked all day but got upset because those who came at the end of the day got paid the same? That is a story that illustrates this "unfair" feeling of the Jews. They have been with God for years and now he is ingrafting these unclean Gentiles who are going to get the same reward as us? How can that be! That is the cry of "unfair" that we hear in this text.

I agree. But don't forget that Jews and Gentiles rejection of God refered to in chapter 3 came before the powerful calling of the gospel message to faith in Christ recorded beginning in verse 21 of that same chapter. To assume that mankinds rebellion before the cross and the sending of the Holy Spirit wrought gospel truth would render all men unable to respond to it when it did come is pure speculation applied by Calvinistic dogma, not the text.

Amen. God didn't chose to bring the gospel of salvation only to those who are working to earn their way in through the law. He brought the message to Gentiles too, who can enter, not by the will to run after the law as the Jews have done but by faith in Christ.

Right. God hardened them TEMPORARILY. And Paul goes on to clearly explain that those hardened will be provoked to jealousy and may be saved. You are appling Romans 11:7-8 to Romans 9? I thought we were only dealing with Romans 9? How dare you refer to Romans 11? Got ya.

You seem to be arguing here that those who God "gave a spirit of stupor" to are the non-elect and those who he has "chosen to show mercy" are his elect.

That is impossible because Paul goes on to say that those who are hardened, and given this Spirit of stupor may still be saved. And it goes on to say that God bound all men, both Jews and Gentiles, over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. How does he show mercy to all if all are not saved? By allowing them entrance into the covenant through faith. That's how.

Agreed. But you misapply this to saved and unsaved when its in reference to those being shown mercy (Gentiles and the Apostles or "remnant") and those being hardened (Jews).

Again, you are appling this to saved and unsaved when he is clearly speaking about those being shown mercy and those being hardened. There is a big difference.

God reserved from the Jews some who would take the message to the world, namely the apostles, and he temporarily hardened the rest.

I see you don't make much of these final verses. Revealing.

They show the contrast that I have been pointing out throughout the text. The Jews were being hardened after pursuing righteousness by the works of the law while Gentiles, the dirty unclean non-chosen nation, were believing and being saved.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]IT'S NOT ABOUT THE ROMANS! IT'S ALL ABOUT ISRAEL. PAUL IS EXPLAINING ISRAEL TO ROME!

We learned about Israel through Paul's explanation to Rome! But then you won't listen to this either because you have an agenda!

 

It's ok Yelsew. I've met his demands by going through his exegisis point by point. What he does with that will reveal his true agenda here.

I thought it was interesting that he ignores my post simply because I refer to Romans 11 to refute his claims yet in his very own exegisis he uses a quote from chapter 11 to support his claims. Its ok for him to use chapter 11 to support his exegisis but its not ok for me to use chapter 11 to refute his claims? Is that a double standard or what? Its very apparent he doesn't know how to deal with these arguments. It will be interesting to see if he will be a man and actually deal with these arguments with a rational well thought out response or if he'll resort to the typical diversion techniques that he has been using thus far.

Let's watch and see...

 

Whew! I've been away from here for a while, and didn't even notice all of this until today.

It's amazing that one side is challenged to exegete the chapter, and when they do, drawing upon the surrounding context (including chapter 11), they are accused of "atomizing it" or taking it piece by piece and jumping to another chapter, when the whole first part of the chapter has been removed from its context by the side making that charge.

Skandelon's long response on the last page was good and contained a lot of what I wanted to say. Still, I would like to add the same points in my own words from my page: (sorry this is so long, but I edited as much as I could and it's all pertinent to what had been discussed so far):
Romans chapter 9 is the number one proof-text for the doctrine, since it discusses "vessels of wrath" (people made for "destruction"), and that God "has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will harden". Then, anyone who questions why God would even create such a person, for instance, are blasted away with a quote of verse 20: "O man, who are you that replies against God?" In other words, this is the "truth" of God's sovereignty, so nobody has the right to question it, not even the poor "vessel of wrath" himself! But people don't even bother to check the CONTEXT. This passage is discussing Israel, a nation of people God was judging as opposed to Gentiles whom He was spreading His grace to, not individual people or everyone in a particular group being predestined for wrath as opposed to other individual people being elected for grace. The passage also mentions God's hardening of Pharaoh, but this is still not talking about salvation or ETERNAL punishment. Paul uses the example of Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh to show how the people were chosen ("elected") by God for His purpose and not by their own will in the first place, and how God raised them up to show his power, and then hardens, all according to His will, and chooses others (and once again, individual salvation is not even mentioned. The very context of Jacob and Esau from Malachi 1:1-4, 3:6, and even the original Genesis 25:12 account is discussing nations!). With both the Jews, as well as in later racism, people thought that their group was "chosen" by God over others because of some type of "superiority" they had within themselves, whether moral, intellectual, genetic, or otherwise. This is precisely what Paul is debunking, as the Gospel tells us there is no such superiority; for all have sinned and are under the same condemnation. Therefore, salvation must be purely by God's grace.
The Jews, of course, would be offended by this, and one of them might ask "why does He find fault" [i.e., with the people], and then Paul says "Who are you O man, to reply against God"? The Jews had been opposing the Gospel and the apostles all along, for among other things, criticizing the Jews for their hardness in rejecting Christ, as well as opening up to the gentiles; yet, possessing the Law (v.4), they should have known better. They had no right to question why God would find fault with the people as a whole, but as an individual, that person could still forsake his part of the national sin and repent.
Think about it: WHO, really, would ask Paul such a question in the first place? One of the "non-elect"? But who could know now that they are ultimately non-elect? Or is it just any arbitrary listener who happens not to like God's election process? Do you think the Jews would really care if all unbelieving Gentiles and apostate Jews were preordained to destruction? They probably already believed that. Would Gentiles care whether individual Jews were "vessels of wrath"? If anything, some may have hastily presumed something like that, but then Paul corrects them, in ch.11:19, proving once and for all that they were not "offended" at Paul "teaching reprobation/preterition" in ch.9! But otherwise; what would that have to do with them? People back then were concerned primarily about themselves and their own group. No one thought about such questions like this as we do. The whole notion of the "dignity and worth of human beings" that makes people so offended at this doctrine now is more a modern Western mindset. A first century reader who just grasped the context regarding Israel and inheritance versus faith would get the point and have no reason to be so offended. But an Israelite in the Church who still had not fully submitted to the Gospel (as we see in the Gospels, Galatians and elsewhere), was another story. The Jews saw their national identity (physical inheritance) as an extension of themselves. It was everything to them, including their salvation. So to suggest they were no longer "chosen" in the sense they were used to was a great affront to them. But the entire Gospel is showing that "chosen" groups one had no choice belonging to did not solve the problem of sin, and thus could not save. Many such people did not even really love God. He was just their mascot and the doorman to Heaven (or national supremacy on earth) if they paid Him with their works, done purely in "the letter" in order to get themselves over. It was their stubborness that prevented them from admitting this (which meant that they too were sinners as much as they tried to keep the Law), so then they were hardened along with the rest of them, just like Romans 1:24 and 2 Thess.2:10-12. (not because God "decreed" the individuals to be initially stubborn in the first place).

Calvinists argue that the entire book of Romans is a "long argument on [individual] salvation, so why would he now be discussing groups?" Let's review the context by further examining the "why does He yet find fault; for who has resisted His will?" question. WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what?
"Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and save them by 'enabling' them to repent, yet leave me/[others] in this helpless state, dead in sin, unable to repent, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state (before I[/they] were born, even) in the first place?". This is what people are asking Calvinists today, who then in turn simply project this into the text. [compare with Ransom's account of what the questioner is asking!] But is it in the context what the hypothetical person was asking Paul? It looks like it at first glance, and Calvinists assume so, so everytime someone questions or challenges "God holding helpless, 'totally unable' sinners responsible for their sin they couldn't repent of", the Calvinists just throw up the next verse as the quick magical answer. But "ability to repent" is not being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back another few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8) Paul argues that simply being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, because for one thing, Abraham had other children beside just the Jews. But God had declared that "In Isaac shall your Seed be called." (v.7) Being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because Esau also was his child. But God had still unconditionally chosen Jacob (v.12, 13), not because of any righteousness of his (Jews thought that their forefathers must have been chosen because of being more righteous, thus "works" rather than "Him that calleth"), for they were not even yet born when God made this decision.(v.11) So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage from Abraham. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough.
To further demonstrate God's choice of men for these purposes was not "unjust" (v.14) Paul goes into the whole story of Pharaoh. No Jew thought of what God did to Pharaoh as being "unjust" (after all, it was for their sake, and that's what mattered to them!) So then what Paul is getting to nobody also should think is unjust either. The whole context is two groups "the Children of the flesh", and "the children of promise". It says nothing about the individuals in either group being unconditionally elected or preteritioned into those groups. It just assumes two groups, and emphasizes that what many thought was the class that mattered (Jew as opposed to Gentile) was actually not the right one. Before one jumps to the clay "vessels", let's for once look more at the second part of v.20 (the beginning of Paul's answer to this question): " Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it , 'Why have you made me this way'?". Made them what way? Predestined to Hell? Helplessly unable to repent, yet "held responsible" to repent and left in that state? Passed over for "saving grace" and therefore doomed to suffer the eternal "justice" for their sins? But once again, none of the above concepts are what was being discussed! (A reader would have no reason to even assume they were any of those things in the first place!). So you just can't say "Paul was answering the objection to God's unconditional election and preterition process"!
The focus is on "children of promise" as opposed to "children of the flesh". Calvinists also take these two groups of "children" as classes of predetermined individuals. According to Ephesians 2:3, we all started out as "children of wrath" (which would be synonymous with "vessels of wrath", "sons of disobedience"(Col.3:6), "seed of Satan" (Matt.13) and also "children of the flesh" for the Jews), and John clearly defines "children of the devil" and "children of God" as "he that commits..." or "...does not commit [practice] sin" (1 John 3:8-10). Thanks to our "depravity" (sin from Adam), nobody is born in the latter state, and so the former, as an eternal state of condemnation, is not what God unconditionally "makes" anybody. This should prove once and for all that the question and Paul's answer have nothing to do with Calvinistic reprobation or preterition. God has declared that there are two groups: Physical Israel (which is in the same spiritual status as the rest of humanity) and spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28, 29).
So the real objection he is answering is: "Why did God make us physical Israel only if that doesn't make us the true children of promise? As much as we try so hard to keep the Law He gave us, why is he still finding fault or not accepting us as we are? Didn't He create us as His people? Could we have resisted His will to create us this way, if this is not what He counts?" HERE is where Paul says "who are you to reply back to God?" He as "the Potter" sovereignly laid out a plan, involving two categories of people; the first had a purpose, but this purpose is not the salvation of the individuals in the group, but to pave the way for the second. It's this second group one must be apart of, and who are we to question this plan? (This still says nothing about a person's inability to cross from one group to the other. The people were stubborn and refused to give up their notion of inheritance, which they would have to do to become apart of the children of promise. This also would be analogous to modern unbelievers saying "Why are you saying one has to be a born-again Christian to be saved?". "Why does God find fault with me as I am? I'm a good person! I am a 'child' of his since he created me!["fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man" philosophy] He made me this way (by his own will), so he should understand!" But to them too, it's not "children of the flesh" who are counted, and not by our own self-justification!). All of this is apart of the theme or "long argument" Paul is making throughout the whole book of Romans.

This was the way the Church had read the passage for the first four centuries before the idea of unconditional "reprobation" was first posed.
Also, "vessels" is like a plural unity in this case— Israel consists of individual "vessels" as all creatures can be likened to vessels, but Israel as a whole was the "vessel", as shown in Isaiah 29:16 & 45:9 and Jer. 18:4-6ff & 25:34 which are the very passages Paul is drawing upon here. Further proof that even as individual "vessels", one is not preordained, in 2 Tim.2:20, 21, the 'vessels' of honor and dishonor are mentioned again, and a person chooses to be a vessel of honor, rather his choice being because he was preordained as a vessel of honor. And likewise, "mercy" and "wrath" must not be assumed to have only eternal meanings. People suffer mercy and wrath all the time here on earth, having nothing to do with whether they wind up saved or damned in the end. The passage does NOT say "He shall have saving mercy on who He shall have saving mercy", but it is made clear elsewhere that it is offered to all. Ultimately, everyone was stubborn and deserved hardening, but God obviously doesn't harden everyone who deserves it. Every person who dabbles in perversion doesn't suffer what Romans 1 describes. But it was their choice to be in that position in the first place. Still, there was nothing stopping individuals in Israel, plus maybe even Pharaoh himself, (AFTER God's "purpose" was fulfilled), from eventually coming to faith. So this is the proper understanding of "vessels" and God "hardening or having mercy on whomever He will".

So we cannot just lift a statement out of its context like this and just move it over and apply it to something it was never intended for.

Calvinists I spoke to pointed to the verse "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" and "children of the flesh, not children of God" (v.6ff) to try to prove this is talking about the "elect" and "non-elect" within Israel. But the distinction between those who obtained salvation and those who didn't was whether they sought it by faith or works. Verses 6 and 8 are simply supporting this, proving that faith is what makes one the faithful remnant, not physical inheritance. This is why Isaac is mentioned. All of the Jews were Isaac's seed also, but where Abraham represented the physical inheritance, Isaac was the child of promise through whom Christ came. Yes, there were both true believers as well as non-believers in Israel, and that's all this is saying; once again there is no assumption of preordained states of individuals. Lest one says "but faith was granted through 'election'", the passage pictures people having sought salvation. They did have choice. The whole debate here was "faith" versus "inheritance", NOT "election" versus "free will"! So the plan of salvation and its carrying out is not of "blood" (inheritance); or "him who runs" or "the will of the flesh" (strives to be good through the Law); or of , "him who wills" or "the will of man" (human schemes and ideas of how to be saved; demanding from God), but of God who shows mercy. (v.10/John 1:13). None of this has anything to do with ability to believe.

This whole first part of the chapter is further interpreted by the last part. V.25-33 is discussing groups that did not pursue righteousness but found it, or who did try to pursue it through the Law but didn't. Paul is simply supporting his argument that in contrast to the Israelites thinking they were all automatically saved by inheritance, many if not most were not saved, because salvation is by faith, not going through the motions of following the Law. Meanwhile, gentiles who didn't even know God (let alone be trying to earn His favor) would be the ones who would in large numbers receive the Gospel, having no inheritance to pride themselves on. Why try to read anything else into this? The message of the New Covenant is that it is no longer the Law or physical inheritance, but faith, and neither some luck of the draw you could do nothing about, but in believing.

 

Continuing:

Calvinists, referring to Pharaoh keep insisting "God hardened him first before he hardened his own heart", and quote the scriptures on how God blinded Israel "...so they may not see". But did Pharaoh start out good or neutral, and then God made him evil to show His purpose? No; even though Pharaoh's whole life is not recorded in scripture, it's obvious he had already been evil and thus was useful for the role God assigned to him. He then hardened him into oppressing Israel to fulfil His purpose. (It is pointed out that "harden" in this case means to give the strength or courage to persist in one's evil, despite the fear from the judgment). Were the Israelites good or neutral and would have "seen" if God hadn't blinded them? No, the individuals were already stubborn and God hardened the group as a whole for His future purpose. (If they take "that they may not see" as "yes", they've blatantly denied their own concept of "total depravity"). Once again, nothing here about eternal reprobation or preterition.
[the same with Joseph's brothers (do we even assume they were lost?) and the murderers of Christ. God did not out of the blue make otherwise innocent people, minding their own business, do wrong, and then send them to Hell for it!]
In connection with this then, is this passage teaching that God "raises" each non-elect person for the specific purpose of sending him to Hell "in order to make known the riches of his glory" to the saved and "proclaim His name throughout the earth"? NO, we don't even know who will finally end up in Hell here on earth, so that wouldn't "show" anybody anything. As for the idea that the "riches of His glory" in reprobation is to be made known to the redeemed in Heaven, the context is clearly a display of God's power in the present world, so this passage must be a specific earthly example of God's purpose. Israel is the whole focus of the chapter, not "all the people who will be in Hell". Since nobody knows who will ultimately die in their sins, there is no such "group" designated, as there would be no point in discussing it. Israel is who Paul says he wished he could be accursed for in v.3, not some new "hardened" group. (And contrast this attitude to "he hardened them but saved me, and that's what's important.")

So, to recap this part of Paul's "long argument of salvation" in the book of Romans, chapter 7 is showing how we have natures that can only break the Law, even though we may will differently. Chapter 8 shows how Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit free us from the condemnation of the Law. Chapters 9 and 10 discuss this from the viewpoint of Israel, who is largely still trusting in the Law. Chapter 11 shows how they too rather than being cast off for good, can be grafted back in by faith. Nowhere is there any hint of anything like unconditional reprobation or preterition. So yes, God "does as He pleases", but let's not distort or misunderstand what it is He actually "pleases"!

 

Eric, very good comments. Long, but well worth reading. I seriously doubt if Ransom will actually deal with these arguments but maybe at least one Calvinist will defend their views of Romans 9 honestly.

I would really like to hear an intelligent rebuttal. Its been my experience that Calvinists start diverting attention or changing the subject when the discussion goes this far.

I really like this comment:

I agree. This goes right along with what I said earlier. Its not about the saved (elect) and the unsaved (non-elect), its about those being temporarly "hardened" (Jews) verses those being "shown mercy" by being grafted in through faith (Gentiles).

I have yet to hear a rebuttal to that arguement on this board or with the dozens of Calvinists I have spoken with in person. They almost always divert the discussion or say "I'll get back to you" or some other avoidance technique. I did have one Calvinist friend, whom I respect greatly say, "I haven't ever looked at it that way before, you could be right about that. Let me study on that and we'll discuss it again." We haven't had a chance to get back together since then but I look forward to it when we do. Its nice to have a discussion with people who can deal honestly with the text even if they have another perspective. Thanks for your input.