Our Featured Member Article: Romans 9 - Introduction by Swordman53

[Trout]

Romans 9 - Introduction

by Robert Anderson

The following text was from a radio debate between myself and a Reformed believer. It has been edited for this format. Unless otherwise noted, the Scripture is from the New Revised Standard version of the Bible.

Roman 9 has always been one of the most difficult passages of the New Testament to interpret. This is due in part because of the agendas that we often bring to text when we are interpreting this passage.

1. Reformed believers tend to see this as a proof text for their particular position on the supposition that God chooses individuals for salvation apart from any choice of the individual.

2. Many other believers will avoid this passage altogether or labor to see some form of justification for God's choosing in the passage (which I believe is there if we are willing to find it).

However, I believe that the passage is a critical support for Paul's overall argument in Romans and must be dealt with within that context. Therefore, I would propose the following proposition for my position in this debate:

"Romans 9 must be interpreted within the context of Paul's argument concerning redemption and provides a justification for the redefinition of the covenant people of God. Therefore, the election it speaks to is corporate, with entry into that covenant through faith."

I do not believe that this long discussion will do justice to either my position or to my opponents'. Rather it is my desire that we open your minds to encourage further investigation into these topics and as Paul told the church in Rome, that we might "share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you-or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine" (Romans 1:11b-12).

First Statement - Romans 9 in Context

Any proper exegesis of a Biblical passage must begin by putting aside our presuppositions and examining the passage within context. By saying this, I want to begin my discussion of Romans 9 by examining two things.

First, of course, we want to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9 within the narrative context of his letter and how this particular passage fits within Paul's larger thesis that he is presenting to the Romans.

As I do this, I also want to examine the historical context in which the author and the audience dwell and their basic paradigm or view of the covenant community that they would have had as they read this text. A key principle of exegesis is that a text cannot mean something to me that was not intended for the original audience. So we need to examine at least some basic aspects of how the audience would have heard the text and what Paul was getting at within his historical context.

Paul's Overall Agenda in Romans

As Paul begins his dialogue in the book of Romans, he presents what I would call his primary thesis statement for his argument in Romans 1:16-17 -

16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."

I call this an argument, because any logical presentation that has premises, claims, and conclusions (or resolutions) is simply that - a logical argument for a case that needs proving.

In the case of Romans, Paul is dealing with a problem that has manifested itself historically in the church as documented in the book of Acts and which Paul consistently deals with in his letter to other churches. For Paul, there has been a change in the covenant community that has met resistance by the established community. That is, Paul is dealing with the issue of the entry of Gentiles into the covenant community, which he now recognizes as the church.

This is a common theme in the letters of Paul -

1. The letter to the Galatians presents one of Paul earliest arguments for this, culminating in that well known assertion that "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:28-29).

2. In his letter to the Ephesians, he tells the Gentile believers that "now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14) For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us" (Ephesians 2:13-14).

Why was this an issue for the Jewish believers in Christ? To understand this, we need to understand the Jewish concept of the covenant community. And we need to see this from the Jewish perspective for two reasons:

1. Paul and almost all of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. He comes out of this tradition and his writing will be consistent with it. It is simply part of his worldview, which has been expanded in Christ.

2. If Christianity is the successor to Judaism in terms of the covenant relationship that humanity has with God, it must be consistent with the concept of the inheritance of the promise that is found in Judaism. Christianity completes Judaism. It does not usurp it.

To understand the argument that Paul will present in Romans and the nature of the conflict he is dealing with, then, it seems we must first delve briefly into the Jewish mindset on how salvation worked.

I like the way N. T. Wright states this (Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992), 457.) -

'The basic Jewish answer to the question, "How is the creator dealing with evil within his creation?" was of course that he had called Israel.'

While Jewish thought and religious practice varied in the first century, the concept of election held by Jewish writers was equivalent to being in the covenant community with God. That is, God had elected Israel or a sub-group (the remnant) within Israel to carry the promises of God and also as a means of dealing with evil in this world. The covenant people were "saved" from this world by being set apart as the people of God. The work that God started with Adam and Eve was renewed in Abraham.

Individuals in the community were the elect simply because of their inclusion in the covenantal community. Indeed, there are phrases within Jewish writings that place God's election of a people side by side with phrases emphasizing the free will of individuals. As noted in the scrolls of Qumran, human choice was combined with God's election and there were "those who volunteer to join the elect of God." The members of a community were called the elect and community were composed of "all those who had freely devoted themselves."

While the Essene communities were monastic and extreme, they held to the basic Jewish concept of election. In their mind, voluntary entry into their community was entry into the elect.

(Note: See also James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, for addition information on this aspect of Jewish election as a whole.)

This corporate concept also was held by other Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees, and was common to Jewish thought.

Does this perspective translate over into Christianity? Absolutely! In fact, the focus of the New Testament discussions on election and covenant are to show that the covenant community has expanded to include those who are Gentiles.

N. T. Wright puts it this way -

"The early Christians, on the basis of everything we know of them from both within and without the canonical 'New Testament', accepted this answer… Israel's purpose had come to its head in Jesus' work, … Those who now belonged to Jesus' people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel's history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation…"

Paul's thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17 provides us with a simple direct statement of his intent for the entire discourse in this letter. His overall purpose in writing the letter is to provide the case and means for reforming the covenant community. It is within the frameworks of this Jewish covenantal thinking of community and Paul's thesis that we come to Romans 9.

Now, all arguments have three basic components that must be present:

1) A problem or issue is presented
2) A series of claims or evidences are presented related to that
3) A conclusion is drawn from the claims that relates to the problem at hand

In this section of Scripture, which really encompasses Romans 9 to 11, Paul is going to address the issue of how we are to understand the Jewish people - who were called "God's elect." In this passage Paul will examine the thesis that he has presented in the light of the Jewish perception that the covenant is restricted to the descendents of Abraham and those who follow the law. What Paul will show in Romans 9 then is that (to phrase his thesis somewhat differently) -

1. The uniqueness of the Jews as the physical descendents of Abraham is not a criterion for being a member of God's people.

2. Salvation is open to everyone who has faith.

This first point is presented in Paul's introduction to this chapter by focusing on the common Jewish belief that descent from Abraham is a requirement of covenant membership. This is found in the first five verses of Romans 9:

1) I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit- 2) I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3) For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4) They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5) to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

This issue can be summarized as follows:

Paul's overwhelming concern for the Jews (his own people), to whom belongs the covenant, who are considered by the flesh to be the elect, is that they are lost. Consequently, there appears to be a failure of the covenant for Israel.

Paul then presents a series of claims or evidences (Romans 9:6-29) that ultimately must support the conclusion given by Paul. That conclusion is found in Romans 9.30-10:4 (keep in mind that the chapter divisions are somewhat artificial).

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33) as it is written,

"See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

10:1)Brothers and sisters, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2) I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3) For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God's righteousness. 4) For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul's ultimate conclusion is that the Jews as a people - the covenant people - are lost because they did not submit to God's righteousness, which is found in the faith of Christ (10:3). Those who are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those who have achieved righteousness by faith - by submitting to God's righteousness found in Christ.

Now, I want you to focus on this conclusion carefully. Nowhere in the conclusion does Paul indicate that individuals are elected to heaven or hell before their response of submitting to God's righteousness in Christ. Rather Paul is simply stating that Gentiles are saved by faith, and Jews who reject Christ are lost because THEY DID NOT SUBMIT to God's righteousness in Christ. People are saved because they respond by faith to God's act in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, having established Paul's issue and his conclusion to that issue, we can confidently state that this passage is not designed as an argument for pre-faith election of individuals in Christ. Rather the conclusion of Paul in this text specifically states that those who are lost are those who (to quote Paul) "have not submitted to God's righteousness". However, those who are saved, as Paul indicates of the Gentiles, are those who (again, quoting Paul) "have attained … righteousness through faith." In the second case, the response of faith has RESULTED IN the attainment of righteousness, not vice versa.

The various claims or evidences found between Paul's presentation of the issue and his conclusion (Romans 9:6-29) must OF NECESSITY support this conclusion in order for his argument to be coherent. We cannot examine these in isolation of this conclusion. Rather, they must be examined within context and support the entry of individuals into the covenant by their submission in faith to Christ.

How they support this argument will be presented very briefly in my next two statements.

Second Statement - Jacob and Esau
It could be argued that what I am calling the "evidences" or "claims" can stand alone as statements of faith and that while they fit into the overall argument that Paul is presenting, in themselves they have an internal integrity that allows them to be treated as sub-arguments. Indeed, we can see three such sub-arguments among the claims.

However, they cannot stand independently or be contradictory to the overall argument presented in the text of Romans 9. The conclusion to that argument states that the attainment of righteousness RESULTS FROM the act of faith.

Let me deal with one of these claims at this point - In Romans 9:6, Paul raises the issue of whether the word of God has failed.

6) It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7) and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." 8) This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. . 9) For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."

Notice how Paul phrases this as he quotes Genesis 18:14. The question is not about whether one person is saved above another. The question being posed is whether God has failed to fulfill the promise to Abraham concerning the covenant and his descendents. Every single book of the Pentateuch (what the Jews would understand as the Law), reiterates the promise of the land and the fact that he would be their God. It is also found in the histories, the writings, and prophets. Israel was told to look to Abraham as their root. The promise is re-affirmed in Jewish writings during the inter-testamental period as well.

So if salvation and the covenant are open to everyone, there is the appearance that God has not been faithful to his word - his word has failed. What Paul has to do to defend his conclusion is show that the promise is not restricted to those who are physically descended from Abraham. Therefore, he approaches the problem by simply saying that God had not chosen all the descendents of Abraham to carry the promise, but only the children of the promise - Isaac and then Jacob. If "the covenant people" is the way God is dealing with evil in this world, then God's promise of Isaac was that his people would serve this function. They would provide a blessing to the world. Specifically, God's promise to Abraham from the same passage that Paul quotes above, was "that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (Genesis 18:18).
Paul's point here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise - which is the issue at stake here. The children of the promise are those who will provide the blessing. They are not necessarily the children of the flesh.

Paul goes on and gives a second illustration to prove his point using Jacob and Esau as the example.

10) Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11) Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose of election might continue, 12) not by works but by his call) she was told, "The elder shall serve the younger." 13) As it is written,
"I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau."

Now many people have misunderstood this text. Some have developed the belief that God literally hated the individual Esau. Yet if we examine it historically, we will see that this is not the case. The only thing that is truly said to Rebecca in Genesis 25 is this:

23) And the LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples born of you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the elder shall serve the younger."

Here the statement if very simply - there are two nations that are going to come from Rebecca and the elder brother will server the younger (who will be stronger). That the covenant promise passed to Jacob is not to be disputed. His descendents would carry the blessing to the world. However, we know from Genesis 33 that Jacob and Esau were reconciled and that both received physical blessing from God and from each other. Jacob simply became the bearer for the promise. In fact, Jacob partially fulfills this choosing of God by bringing blessing to Esau!

Where then does Paul get this statement about God loving Jacob and hating Esau? The statement "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau" comes approximately 1500 years later and does not refer to the individuals, but to two nations - Israel (then a Persian colony) and Edom. The text is taken from the prophet Malachi and concerns the oppression of post-exilic Israel by the Edomites. God is simply re-affirming that they are the covenant people, and their return to the land is part of his plan for them, and that he will protect them. But we must keep in mind that this statement CANNOT be taken as a foreordained decree of election because it is a consequence of God's choice, not a premise to that choice. Historically, it comes, in time, 1500 years after the birth of Jacob and Esau.

How then does this statement fit into the argument for Gentile acceptance into the covenant? Paul is simply stating that God has the right to choose people OUTSIDE of their ethnic or nationalistic heritage. While the Edomites were descended from Abraham, they were not part of the covenant people. From an ethnic perspective (which is the way Paul is presenting the argument), in order for Edomites to become part of that covenant, they would have to enter into Israel (or the Jewish people) by the act of circumcision.

Now to go back to Romans 9, as I have shown through this one example, the claims given in the argument are there to show that God does have the power and authority to make choices, and he is not locked into the assumptions made by some in Paul's implied audience that the covenant is open only to those of physical descent from Abraham. His choices are made based solely on his own authority and not on works or religious rituals of individuals (like circumcision). That is why part of Paul's conclusion in this section is that "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for EVERYONE who believes."
Third Statement - Paul's Use of Prophecy

In this next summary, I would like to examine those claims given by Paul in support of his conclusion.

Paul's use of Old Testament Passages

Specifically, I would like to focus on Paul's use of prophecy and Old Testament narrative to support his final conclusion, which I will repeat here -

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because THEY DID NOT STRIVE FOR IT on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.

We have already examined Paul's first evidence. Now let us examine the remaining two evidences closer to see how Paul is using the prophetic passages he quotes.

As an ex-Pharisee, Paul would not be ignorant of the prophets' intentions within these scriptures and he would follow that intent in his analysis of present "Israel's" condition.

Fundamentally, what Paul is showing is that God is recreating or remolding Israel, the covenant community, based on the work of Jesus Christ. The passages that he chooses then are designed to focus on the work of God with this community, not with the individuals.
Given the timeframe I have, I will not get through all of the passages, but let me suggest that you jot down and examine these five passages:

1. Malachi 1:1-5 - which speaks of God's favor of Israel over Edom as a people.

I have already discussed this passage.

2. Exodus 33:1-23 - God starting Israel all over again with Moses because of their disobedience.

3. Exodus 9 - The passage of the hardening of Pharaoh.

4. Jeremiah 18:1-11 - the potter and the clay. This passage speaks of God remolding Israel into another vessel.

5. Hosea 1:1-9 - God choosing a new people to be his own instead of Israel.

Romans 9:14-18 - Moses and Mercy

Let us look at how Paul uses these passages in Romans 9. To do that, I would like to go to the second evidence, in Romans 9:14-18. Here Paul poses the following question:

What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part?

The intent of the question reflects again the issue of the fate of ethnic Israel. If God has made the promise to them through Abraham, then is he being unjust in his decision about how to exercise the promise? We have to affirm with Paul -

By no means! 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."

Where God's mercy will fall is God's decision. It is not based on ethnic origin, but on whom he chooses - which, as we have seen in Paul's conclusion, is on those who have faith.

Now Paul goes on to conclude this claim in an interesting way. He states the conclusion of this claim as follows:

16) So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

Paul has already concluded in prior chapters that the works of the law do not yield righteousness. Justification (or "rectification" as it should be translated per J. Louis Martyn in the Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians) comes by God's mercy - his merciful response to our faith.

But what does it mean when we say that it is not "by human will"? Does that mean that faith is not sourced in the individual, but comes as some act of God?

If we examine the text we will see that the question here is NOT about the source of faith, but rather whether human obedience to the law yields God's favor. The answer is simply, "No." Only faith yields God's favor, as Paul has already stated.

But what are we to do with Pharaoh? Did not God raise him up simply to destroy him?

17) For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." 18) So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

Is this not clear evidence that God does make some people to be "hardened" to destruction?

This is one of the dangers of trying to exegete Romans 9 in isolation of the broader context of Paul's overall argument found in Romans 9-11. Most serious commentators would shudder at what we are doing in isolating Romans 9 to its own text and insist that we treat all three chapters as a unit. So in the light of this fact, I think we must understand the following about this statement.

1. First, Paul is borrowing this very short text from Exodus 9:16 to show that Israel as a people have been hardened by God. This does not mean all or even specific individuals have been hardened, since some are clearly followers of Christ (including Paul himself). He is simply speaking in general terms concerning "his people" as a whole.

2. Second, we must understand this hardening is NOT to damnation. It is a hardening for a purpose, just like Pharaoh's hardening was for a purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh was so that "God's name would "resound through all the earth." God's hardening of Israel was so that salvation would come to the Gentiles. In Romans 11:11, in speaking of Israel's hardening, Paul poses the following question (11:11):

11) So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?

Paul's answer is an emphatic "By no means!"

"But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous."

Their stumbling is for a purpose (very similar to Pharaoh's).

3. Finally, this hardening is temporary. Paul is very clear that through this process, a return of the Jews will eventually occur - not to the old covenant, but to the new.

"11:12) Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"

Now even if we were to presume that the hardening is of individuals, then on the basis of this text in Romans 11, which is part of the overall argument and speaks of the same people, we must conclude that it is not a permanent hardening. For in this passage Paul speaks of the hardening and the inclusion in the covenant of the same people!
We must therefore see this as a temporary hardening of a people. God's design here is for Israel to become an instrument (SKEUOS or "vessel" is the term commonly used in Romans 9) in God's hands to accomplish his will by that hardening. Therefore, they have become an instrument of wrath, but only for a time.

Romans 9:21 - The Potter and the Clay

We now come to Paul's final evidence, which is also posed by a question:

19) You will say to me then, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Paul has already concluded based on the first two claims that:

1. God's Word has not failed. God has the right to choose to save people outside of the ethnic Israel. (This will be dealt with below.)

2. God has hardened Israel to declare his glory outside the ethnic boundaries of Israel. But this hardening is instrumental and temporary. These people are fully redeemable if they come to Christ.
If this is the case, then logically this question would lead to the next - why does God find fault in anyone? Paul's response is one of those rhetorical techniques of rebutting the question with a short response - Who are you, oh man, to question God?

Now there is often an "AH HA!" given here where people will say, "See, he is speaking of individuals! He is speaking of a man who is questioning God!"

But I think this is misconstruing the text. First, Paul is posing the question in a rhetorical fashion - so that he can answer like this. Second - and forgive me for getting a bit technical here - the way Paul responds is a bit unique. The reference "oh man" is the word ANTHROPOS (from which we get our word anthropology - the study of humanity). Paul presents this term in the vocative case, which is used for direct address. However, we know that there is no single man that Paul is addressing. Paul is using it as a title for humanity in general. What Paul is re-affirming here is what he has affirmed in the first claim - that human beings as a whole do not dictate how God builds the covenant community.

We then come to that curious argument about the potter and the clay.

Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

This concept is taken right out of Jeremiah 18:1-8.

1) The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2) "Come, go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words." 3) So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4) The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him.
5) Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6) Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the LORD. Just like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7) At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8) but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.

Now follow me here because this is very important for Paul's argument. Paul has been talking about the remolding of the covenant community. When challenged (rhetorically) as to why God would find fault, he states that it is not the place of humanity to challenge what God is doing. To prove his point, he goes back to the Jeremiah prophecy where Israel IS RESHAPED because of their sin into something else - another vessel! The covenant community is remade by the potter as far back as the prophet Jeremiah.

How is it remade? Paul goes back to another prophecy found in Hosea 1, to show that the Gentiles who "were not my people" are now called "my people" and "beloved" (a name reserved for Israel).

26) "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they shall be called children of the living God."

But not only the Gentiles are included. There is a remnant of believers from Israel as well. They are included as well.

27) And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28) for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively." 29) And as Isaiah predicted,
"If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
we would have fared like Sodom
and been made like Gomorrah."

So what is Paul's conclusion for this claim? That God has remolded the covenant community as he saw fit (it is not for us to question why or how he has done this) and it contains both Jews and Gentiles that have the faith of Jesus Christ.

Now the three claims show simply that God is remolding the covenant community by his own will and it includes those beyond the ethnic boundaries of Israel - all those of faith.

Fourth Statement - Romans 9 and the Election of Individual to Salvation
The letter to the Romans played a very important role during the reformation period in the formation of theological positions for Martin Luther and John Calvin. For Martin Luther, Romans 1-8 was extremely importing in his investigation of the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith. John Calvin saw Romans 9-11 as a support for his doctrine of predestination. And Reformed teachers have followed these lines of thought for some time.

However, the science of hermeneutics and Biblical exegesis has made tremendous strides since the time of the Reformation. One of the great benefits of our modern methods is the recovery of the study of classical rhetoric, the ancient form of argument that Paul uses in at least two of his letters - Galatians and Romans. According to Professor Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University, "all of Romans can be read as a single rhetorical argument with each section of the letter serving a different function." It is a "scholastic diatribe", with many of the stylistic features of a diatribe found throughout the text (rhetorical questions, apostrophe, abrupt responses, etc.), but key is that it uses a dialect mode of argument.

A dialect mode of argument basically takes two conflicting ideas and evaluates them for their accuracy and soundness. Now we can see from the thesis statement and from Paul argument to this point that one of these ideas at least is (as Luther discovered), justification by faith. The other (the antithesis), as we have seen from the conclusion of Romans 9 is righteousness or justification by the works of the law. Paul is placing these side by side to support his thesis of justification by the faith of Christ, and to demonstrate that righteousness cannot be achieved by works of the law in spite of Jewish ethnic heritage.

Given the thesis of Paul and the antithesis of the works of the law, one has to wonder where the idea of individual election by decree would fit into this argument and why Paul would introduce it into the letter. It supports neither Paul's thesis nor the antithesis - in fact it makes both positions irrelevant since justification is by decree before any act of faith or any works takes place. It simply does not belong in the argument and has been imposed on that argument by theologians to support their views.

But if we are to say that God has decreed that those who come to him IN FAITH are those he will redeem, and then he does move those of faith into the group we would call "the elect", then this fits the thesis and the argument very well. It also explains the need for Romans 9 as an explanation that Jewish heritage and ceremonial law is not what makes one a member of God's family.

Faith is what does that.

Final Statement - What is at stake?
As I close this discussion I have a few thoughts I would like to leave with you.

First, this text is used to defend a variety of doctrines and is highly debated. Some might object to this analysis in terms of the debate itself, but the question is - what is really at stake here?

Is it the doctrine of election that many see this text supporting? Well, the Calvinist claims to have many verses that support the doctrine of election. Therefore, this one passage certainly is not that important in the overall argument for their case.

Is it the doctrine of salvation? God has provided our salvation for all who believe. Reformers and non-reformers alike confess this truth. It is found in the cross of Christ - God united with humanity in our sin and the ultimate effect of our sin - death.

Is it God's sovereignty? I hardly think a sovereign God needs me or anyone else to protect him from the misconceptions of humanity, or even from a misunderstanding church. Misunderstandings of doctrine are manifest throughout the history of Christianity and are rampant today in thousands of denominations. God will go on when we are all long gone.

Is it God's righteousness and justice that is at stake here? We can argue all day on how to define those concepts, but we all affirm that God is good, and just, and righteous. It is humanity that is not.

No, I think these issues are simply secondary and in some respects, personal issues that individuals like to argue about.

What is at stake here is the integrity of Scripture itself. The Reformed churches have preached Sola Scriptura as a guiding principle for almost 500 years. Roman Catholic and Orthodox believers, while speaking of an ecclesiastical authority within the church that matches Holy Scripture, would be appalled if anyone suggested that ecclesiastical authority could contradict Scripture. We all hold Scripture in the highest regard and we all believe that God is speaking in Holy Scripture.

Yet when we come to Scripture we all bring a bit of ourselves. We have this need of structure and form and theory that subconsciously allows us to fit God into a box of our own making, using words like "sovereignty", "righteousness", and "love" to frame the God that fits our paradigm.

But if we are really to hear God, we must be willing to put aside our presuppositions and approach the text within the purpose for which it was given. All of the letters are occasional - they are written to address a specific issue within the church receiving the letter. Both historically and through the Biblical narratives we know that the issue of Gentile entry into the covenant was a major issue that ultimately led to the final split of Christianity with Judaism as the Jewish councils of Jamnia. We need to read Romans within the first century framework of controversy and struggle in the church.

The task of exegesis is simply this - striving to hear Scripture in the way it was delivered in its historical context and narrative context.

I began this discussion with a very basic proposition:

"Romans 9 must be interpreted within the context of Paul's argument concerning redemption and provides a justification for the redefinition of the covenant people of God. Therefore, the election it speaks to is corporate, with entry into that covenant through faith."

I have shown how this proposition fits with Paul's thesis statement of Romans 1:16-17.

16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."

I then showed how the rhetorical argument in Romans 9 fits within the thought paradigms of the first century believers and narrative framework of the letter itself. Any attempt at good exegesis must strive to accomplish this, putting aside our presuppositions as we enter the text. It is my hope that I have at least opened to the door for further thinking in this area.

Second and finally, I want to admonish you concerning the unity of the church. We live by the faith of Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins. We have entered a new creation because of his faithfulness on the cross. In this we all agree.

I hope that this discourse is somewhat educational in terms of the alternative position concerning this much debated text. But it must never be used divisively. We are members of the household of God - his kingdom. Our call in Christ is to be united in Him. Therefore, I think a final admonition must come from Paul himself from this letter (Romans 14:17-19).

17) For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18) The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. 19) Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Bob Anderson
Swordman53


500

If you would like to discuss this article, please contact a moderator.

Notice - The featuring of a particula article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Trout]

Thanks for the article Swordman, I'm looking forward to the responses.

[themuzicman]

Excellent article.

[Jamoke]

Very helpful article Swordman. I never looked at Romans 9 that way before. It is still sinking in, but it seems to make good sense. I've wrestled with this issue for a long time and you may have started my pendullum swinging again!!

[Swordman53]

Very helpful article Swordman. I never looked at Romans 9 that way before. It is still sinking in, but it seems to make good sense. I've wrestled with this issue for a long time and you may have started my pendullum swinging again!!

Thanks for the comments. That is my intent - to get people thinking about the text without imposing doctrinal ideas on it.

[GoBahnsen]

I plan to read the article and report back. Trout has my Calvinist' de-coder ring, so I may have to just rely on the Bible to see if these things be so.

[Swordman53]

I plan to read the article and report back. Trout has my Calvinist' de-coder ring, so I may have to just rely on the Bible to see if these things be so.

lol - That is always the best approach.

Have fun and leave your presuppositions behind.

Swordman53

[datalcott]

Swordman--you obviously have spent a great deal of time in this passage of Scripture, and I appreciate your insights. The inclusions of Gentiles in the covenant is indeed one of the central messages of Romans. Despite this, though, I don't think your exegesis can hold up. I am of the Reformed persuasion, but I hope that my Reformed beliefs derive from Scripture, and are not just imposed on Scripture. You say a lot of helpful and insightful things, but as an exegesis of the passage as a whole, and as an attempt to show that the traditional Reformed understanding of this passage is incorrect I do not think you have succeeded. There are a few key verses that you have skipped over in your exegesis which provide insurmountable problems for your interpretation. So, I have a few questions for you.

1) I'm curious how you make sense out of Romans 9:19. More specifically, if Paul hasn't been talking about individual persons in his discussion of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, then what sense does it make to talk about an individual person resisting or not resisting his will? If your interpretation were right, then God's action described in this passage wouldn't be closely related to individual wills at all! Yet it clearly does. Romans 9:19 does not admit of a communal interpretation of the sort you've been recommending. So, we should think that the electing invovled is and electing of individuals, not just undefined groups.

2) I certainly agree that God can call people to certain roles in which they sin grievously, but which doesn't necessarily mean that they're not saved. However, it seems to me that the calling and electing Paul's discussing in this passage does have to to with salvation rather than vocation. This comes out perhaps most clearly in 9:22. The vessel's he's called to a "dishonorable" vocation are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." I presume we have to interpret that as eternal damnation--being objects of wrath and being destroyed seems worse that just called to a temporary purpose from which we may be fully restored later through our faith. This is further reinforced in 9:23 where the contrasting vessels of mercy recieve "the riches of his Glory"--that which we get through being united to Christ (cf. Ephesians 1-2). So, we're definately talking about Salvation. Election is thus of a particular group of individuals out of both Jews and Gentiles unto salvation (9:24). All throughout he's underscoring and emphasizing the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant--as you rightly, and very eloquently, explain. But he's also doing more, he's discussing particular election to salvation and damnation.

3) You rightly point out in your discussion of 9:6-9 that "Paul's point here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise - which is the issue at stake here. The children of the promise are those who will provide the blessing. They are not necessarily the children of the flesh." But I want to quibble with two words, first, "simply." Paul goes on from here not only to explain that there is a difference between children of the flesh and children of the promise, but also to explain why certain people are either of the promise or not of the promise. If this were not so, then 9:19 makes no sense, as I discuss in (1) above. Second, "provide the blessing." My comments in (2) above and Paul's statements in 9:1-5 mean there is more going on here than how God chooses to bless the world (if bless is taken vocationally). The discussion is of salvation. Children of the promise are saved, while children only of the flesh are not.

[Swordman53]

I would like to thank you for your comments. Dialog on Scripture is always fruitful. My comments are after each of your points.

Swordman--you obviously have spent a great deal of time in this passage of Scripture, and I appreciate your insights. The inclusions of Gentiles in the covenant is indeed one of the central messages of Romans. Despite this, though, I don't think your exegesis can hold up. I am of the Reformed persuasion, but I hope that my Reformed beliefs derive from Scripture, and are not just imposed on Scripture. You say a lot of helpful and insightful things, but as an exegesis of the passage as a whole, and as an attempt to show that the traditional Reformed understanding of this passage is incorrect I do not think you have succeeded. There are a few key verses that you have skipped over in your exegesis which provide insurmountable problems for your interpretation. So, I have a few questions for you.


I certainly would be amazed if everyone assumed I succeeded here, since Reformers generally do not agree with me. However, I will address your issues in turn.

The inclusion of the Gentiles into the covenant is more than just "one of the central messages of Romans." It is the very theme of the letter itself.

Paul writes this letter to the church at Rome, a church he did not found, to present his gospel to them to encourage them to support him on his planned missionary journey to Spain. As the apostle to the Gentiles, he must show that God is including them in the community of God on the basis of faith.


1) I'm curious how you make sense out of Romans 9:19. More specifically, if Paul hasn't been talking about individual persons in his discussion of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, then what sense does it make to talk about an individual person resisting or not resisting his will? If your interpretation were right, then God's action described in this passage wouldn't be closely related to individual wills at all! Yet it clearly does. Romans 9:19 does not admit of a communal interpretation of the sort you've been recommending. So, we should think that the electing invovled is and electing of individuals, not just undefined groups.


I believe I have indeed addressed Romans 9:19 in my analysis. You need to go back to the issue that Paul has raised in verse 6 - "It is not as though God's Word has failed." What word could Paul possibly be talking about in this chapter but the covenant to Israel - "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever.

The question is applicable to the issue at hand. If God's word has not failed and he can choose who he wants, then what has become of Israel? Who can resist God will if he decides to choose anyone and not just the covenant community? The analysis of the potter and the clay, as I noted in my text, is about the reframing of Israel as a different covenant community. God has the right to form the community as he desires.

You need to re-read that section.

And he desires to reform it with those who have faith in Christ - Jews and Gentiles alike.

God does choose individuals. He chooses them on the basis of their faith (Romans 9:30-32) - "What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.

But the primary issue of the passage is who constitutes the covenant community. It is only composed of those who have faith in Christ.


2) I certainly agree that God can call people to certain roles in which they sin grievously, but which doesn't necessarily mean that they're not saved. However, it seems to me that the calling and electing Paul's discussing in this passage does have to to with salvation rather than vocation. This comes out perhaps most clearly in 9:22. The vessel's he's called to a "dishonorable" vocation are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." I presume we have to interpret that as eternal damnation--being objects of wrath and being destroyed seems worse that just called to a temporary purpose from which we may be fully restored later through our faith. This is further reinforced in 9:23 where the contrasting vessels of mercy recieve "the riches of his Glory"--that which we get through being united to Christ (cf. Ephesians 1-2). So, we're definately talking about Salvation. Election is thus of a particular group of individuals out of both Jews and Gentiles unto salvation (9:24). All throughout he's underscoring and emphasizing the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant--as you rightly, and very eloquently, explain. But he's also doing more, he's discussing particular election to salvation and damnation.


Are you saying that God calls people to sin? Perhaps you can substantiate that with Scripture before we go too far here. We do not want to make God the author of sin.

The word for "vessel" (SKEUOS) has an instrumental quality. Paul is very clear that the current reject of Christ by the Jews is so that salvation would come to the Gentiles (Romans 11:11).

As I noted in my text, those same vessels that are instruments of wrath still can repent and believe (11:12). Therefore, this cannot be an election to damnation without ignoring the context of Paul's overall argument.

I dealt with this in the overall argument as follows:

1. First, Paul is borrowing this very short text from Exodus 9:16 to show that Israel as a people have been hardened by God. This does not mean all or even specific individuals have been hardened, since some are clearly followers of Christ (including Paul himself). He is simply speaking in general terms concerning "his people" as a whole.

2. Second, we must understand this hardening is NOT to damnation. It is a hardening for a purpose, just like Pharaoh's hardening was for a purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh was so that "God's name would "resound through all the earth." God's hardening of Israel was so that salvation would come to the Gentiles. In Romans 11:11, in speaking of Israel's hardening, Paul poses the following question (11:11):

11) So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?

Paul's answer is an emphatic "By no means!"

"But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous."

Their stumbling is for a purpose (very similar to Pharaoh's).

3. Finally, this hardening is temporary. Paul is very clear that through this process, a return of the Jews will eventually occur - not to the old covenant, but to the new.

"11:12) Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"

Now even if we were to presume that the hardening is of individuals, then on the basis of this text in Romans 11, which is part of the overall argument and speaks of the same people, we must conclude that it is not a permanent hardening. For in this passage Paul speaks of the hardening and the inclusion in the covenant of the same people!

We must therefore see this as a temporary hardening of a people. God's design here is for Israel to become an instrument (SKEUOS or "vessel" is the term commonly used in Romans 9) in God's hands to accomplish his will by that hardening. Therefore, they have become an instrument of wrath, but only for a time.

The stumbling that Paul refers to in 11:12 is the hardening of the Jews. Yet it is this same people that Paul says can be included again!

Now you have a choice here. If you say that the text is speaking of individuals, then based on this passage you MUST affirm that the individuals can repent. Note 11:23-24 -

And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Or you can say this is a general statement about Israel as the covenant community. Keep in mind how Paul closes Romans 11 -

As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.

Don't you find it a bit odd that Paul says the elect ("as regard to election they are beloved") are the enemies of God? And that in spite of this, God loves them and desires to show mercy to them?

This does not sound like election to damnation to me.


3) You rightly point out in your discussion of 9:6-9 that "Paul's point here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise - which is the issue at stake here. The children of the promise are those who will provide the blessing. They are not necessarily the children of the flesh." But I want to quibble with two words, first, "simply." Paul goes on from here not only to explain that there is a difference between children of the flesh and children of the promise, but also to explain why certain people are either of the promise or not of the promise. If this were not so, then 9:19 makes no sense, as I discuss in (1) above. Second, "provide the blessing." My comments in (2) above and Paul's statements in 9:1-5 mean there is more going on here than how God chooses to bless the world (if bless is taken vocationally). The discussion is of salvation. Children of the promise are saved, while children only of the flesh are not.

Since I have shown that your comments in (2) above do not address the context of Paul's argument, I am not sure I need to address this question. The issue is what constitutes the covenant community. Paul has already addressed how we are saved in Romans 3. We are saved by faith - the faithful work of Christ and our faith in him. Paul does not have to come up with another idea of how we are saved in Romans 9. In fact, he repeats his original assertion -

"What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. "

The introductory question - "What then are we to say?" - signifies that this is Paul's conclusion. He does NOT concluded that one person is elected over another. And also note that Israel did NOT fail because of an election process by God. They failed because they lacked faith.

The topic area has to do with whether God's covenant with Israel has failed - "It is not as though the word of God has failed." God did not fail - Israel did. But through faith they can be grafted back into the tree.


Swordman53

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Datalcott … if Paul hasn't been talking about individual persons in his discussion of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, then what sense does it make to talk about an individual person resisting or not resisting his will?

Yes, mui excellante...

Swordsman: If God's word has not failed and he can choose who he wants, then what has become of Israel? Who can resist God will if he decides to choose anyone and not just the covenant community?

But aren't you yourself speaking of individuals here? Not groups? That's just Data's point.

Swordsman: The analysis of the potter and the clay, as I noted in my text, is about the reframing of Israel as a different covenant community. God has the right to form the community as he desires.

And just choose entrance criteria? But where are entrance criteria mentioned in reference to Isaac, and Jacob, and Pharaoh?

God does choose individuals. He chooses them on the basis of their faith (Romans 9:30-32)

And does faith have a cause? That is the next question here, I would say.

Acts 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

The introductory question - "What then are we to say?" - signifies that this is Paul's conclusion. He does NOT conclude that one person is elected over another.

Does he not, though? If the basis of salvation is people's decision, then how is God unjust? The question should not come up.

And also note that Israel did NOT fail because of an election process by God. They failed because they lacked faith.

And that is because the faith was not given!

Deuteronomy 29:4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

Joshua 24:19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the Lord."

And they weren't…

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

Lee,

Thanks for your thoughts. I will have to defer answering for about a week, because I am in the middle of two major projects (plus completing my taxes).

However, I think you need to go back to the fundimental issue - "It is not as though the word of God has failed."

What is the point of this question in the context that Paul presents it - the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people in terms of the Messiah?

I will try to respond next weekend in more depth.

Swordman53

Hi everyone,



Yes, mui excellante...



But aren't you yourself speaking of individuals here? Not groups? That's just Data's point.



And just choose entrance criteria? But where are entrance criteria mentioned in reference to Isaac, and Jacob, and Pharaoh?



And does faith have a cause? That is the next question here, I would say.

Acts 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.



Does he not, though? If the basis of salvation is people's decision, then how is God unjust? The question should not come up.



And that is because the faith was not given!

Deuteronomy 29:4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

Joshua 24:19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the Lord."

And they weren't…

Blessings,
Lee

[r4043]

Lee,

Thanks for your thoughts. I will have to defer answering for about a week, because I am in the middle of two major projects (plus completing my taxes).

However, I think you need to go back to the fundimental issue - "It is not as though the word of God has failed."

What is the point of this question in the context that Paul presents it - the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people in terms of the Messiah?

I will try to respond next weekend in more depth.

Swordman53
As soon as we understand that the we call the Bible the Holy Word of God,that is exactly what it is. It is Gods Word! What I write and what Paul wrote are all words provided by God through God the Holy Spirit. We take no credit for what we write because it is a true privalige give all the Glory to God. We must read the whole Bible and do it by the Grace of God,and then we can understand its meaning. That is not to say that we will fully understand the Word upon completing the reading but that we gain the knowledge of the Word each time we read it. If we take one passage or one chapter and think that we can understand the Word we are mistaken. It all come together as one and delivers the whole message,knowledge,wisdom and understanding we are seeking.
The word of God that is the most important to us has been given to all of us by having it imprinted into our hearts by the Grace of God. We do not have any excuse and we we do have a free will. God knows all things and He has said "many are called but few are chosen" but we do have the power of prayer and we do know that God has cahnged His Mind,so let us not assume that we are gong to have the answer for Pauls Ch:-9 unless we invite God into our lives and use all of the wealth He has provided us with.
The one thing that is repeated throughout the whole Bible is that we must belive in our Lord Jesus Christ in order to gain the Kingdom of Heaven and be certain that is where we all want to go right now but many of us do not know why!
It is truly by the Grace of God that I share this with you and I do hope that you will recive it with love.
My we all be in HIs service now and forever
r4043
rmal@sbcglobal.net

[Swordman53]

Thank you for your response.

I think we all agree that the Bible is God's Word and we do interpret Scripture with Scripture.

However, I was looking for an answer the addressed the context of the covenant that Paul discussed in the first five verses of the Romans 9, which is the topic under discussion.

I find the quote below interesting since it is EXACTLY what I believe Romans 9 is all about. We come to God in faith - believing in the work of Christ on the cross. That is the whole of Paul's message in Romans.

Thanks again.

The one thing that is repeated throughout the whole Bible is that we must belive in our Lord Jesus Christ in order to gain the Kingdom of Heaven ...

[r4043]

We do not live by the law,however we are aware of the law but the law is not what is our foundation. The word of God has been burned into our hearts and we do have a free will,thus if any mortal choses to turn away from our Lord Jejsu Christ and allow the material substanse in this world to overwhelm our heart and have the world lead us then we have made our choice. We are now able to see how clear this subject is because the the magntude of greed in this world and that is by CHOICE. If we do in-fact read the whole word of God we will have a better understanding of what Paul has written in Rom: 9 and that all these word were inspired by God and is the truth
That is the why we pray to God to bless us with the gift of Faith.
We know that we are Gods children and that if we permit God to guide us in all our thoughts,words and actions we will enjoy the life we live upon this earth with peace and happiness and above all , love.Money cannot buy these gifts or any other holy gifts we receive from God. Everything in moderation. You have the free will to chose what you want on this earth and if you let money blind you then you are putting yourself in the danger of loseing gifts of God and true happiness on this earth

Even during the time when Moses was leading the israelites out of Egypt God said he would make the king stubborn,and was he was stubborn as ever. At this time there was a very sad time for the egytians because the first born sons were killed. Now is there any mortal who really understands God ? We must belive what is told to us by His Holy Word and what has been burned into our hearts. That is not difficult nor is it complicated. Our faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done for us and have the faith to maintain our faith while we live on the earth, then we have all we need.
Each day is a new day and must know where all things come from. Amen
r4043

[Swordman53]

If God's word has not failed and he can choose who he wants, then what has become of Israel? Who can resist God will if he decides to choose anyone and not just the covenant community?
But aren't you yourself speaking of individuals here? Not groups? That's just Data's point.

I think if you look closely I am definitely speaking of two groups - Israel and the Gentiles (all those who are not-Israel). Israel distinquished itself as the covenant people who were separated from the rest of humanity. Now Paul is saying that is Christ this distinction is no longer there.

If you are concerned about whether God deals with individuals, then rest assured that he clearly does. He declares those who have faith in him (Jews and Gentiles) to be his people and to be "righteous." That is clear from Romans 4.

The analysis of the potter and the clay, as I noted in my text, is about the reframing of Israel as a different covenant community. God has the right to form the community as he desires.
And just choose entrance criteria? But where are entrance criteria mentioned in reference to Isaac, and Jacob, and Pharaoh?
I think that Paul establishes the entry criterium in his conclusion very clearly - It is by faith.

God does choose individuals. He chooses them on the basis of their faith (Romans 9:30-32)

And does faith have a cause? That is the next question here, I would say.

Acts 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.
Whether faith has a cause and what that cause might be is a highly debated question in theology. But it is not a question for Paul in Romans 9. We must interpret Romans 9 within the context of Paul's intention here. As we know from the local context (Romans 9-11) and the broader context (Romans), Paul is trying to demonstrate that righteous comes to those of faith. Paul is very clear - those who did not achieve righteousness MAY ACHIEVE IT - if they come in faith. The discussion is about faith, not election.

The introductory question - "What then are we to say?" - signifies that this is Paul's conclusion. He does NOT conclude that one person is elected over another.
Does he not, though? If the basis of salvation is people's decision, then how is God unjust? The question should not come up.


The question is rhetorical to introduce his conclusion to the issue he has presented at the beginning of Romans 9 - "It is not as though the word of God has failed." Paul is demonstrating that what has happened is PRECISELY what the word of God said would happen. Gentiles are included through faith. Jews who do not believe are rejected by lack of faith. That is the bottom line.

And also note that Israel did NOT fail because of an election process by God. They failed because they lacked faith.
And that is because the faith was not given!

Deuteronomy 29:4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

Joshua 24:19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the Lord."

And they weren't…

Ouch! I think I just felt an imposition on the text. It would be best if we stayed within the context of what Paul is saying.

Moreover, you are taking partial verses out of context to prove your point. The Joshua 24 text is a covenant ceremony that must be examined as a whole. Why? Simply because Israel did choose to serve God in this ceremony! Look at it within context (Joshua 24:16-25 - I have underlined your fragment of text) -

Then the people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods; for it is the LORD our God who brought us and our ancestors up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight. He protected us along all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed; and the LORD drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the LORD, for he is our God.”
19But Joshua said to the people, “You cannot serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good.” And the people said to Joshua, “No, we will serve the LORD!” Then Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him.” And they said, “We are witnesses.” He said, “Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel.” The people said to Joshua, “The LORD our God we will serve, and him we will obey.” So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made statutes and ordinances for them at Shechem.

This passage is an oath-taking ceremony - a covenant ritual where Israel did choose to follow God. Therefore, it is not applicable to you argument.

Deuteronomy 29 is also about Israel making covenant with God, so it also does not support your argument -

You stand assembled today, all of you, before the LORD your God—the leaders of your tribes, your elders, and your officials, all the men of Israel, your children, your women, and the aliens who are in your camp, both those who cut your wood and those who draw your water—to enter into the covenant of the LORD your God, sworn by an oath, which the LORD your God is making with you today; in order that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you and as he swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

You cannot take a verse out of context to prove your point. More important - Read Deuteronomy 30. Moses clearly tells them that the choice between life and death is their choice.

btw- Deuteronomy 29 should make it crystal clear to you why the issue of Romans 9 is so important from a Jewish perspective. As a people they had sworn an oath to God to be his people. Now it appears that the covenant has failed since it is open to all of faith.

Swordman53

[lee_merrill]

Dear moderators,

Could we move this thread over to Theology 201? I don't actually visit the Media Department, looking for such issues under discussion!

Thank you,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Hi Swordsman,

Deuteronomy 29 should make it crystal clear to you why the issue of Romans 9 is so important from a Jewish perspective. As a people they had sworn an oath to God to be his people. Now it appears that the covenant has failed since it is open to all of faith.
I agree that Paul addresses this concern, but I would hold that this is not his main point!

Swordsman: If God's word has not failed and he can choose who he wants, then what has become of Israel? Who can resist God's will if he decides to choose anyone and not just the covenant community?

Lee: But aren't you yourself speaking of individuals here?

Swordsman: I am definitely speaking of two groups - Israel and the Gentiles (all those who are not-Israel). Israel distinguished itself as the covenant people who were separated from the rest of humanity. Now Paul is saying that is Christ this distinction is no longer there.
But "he can choose who he wants" and "who can resist God's will?" is referring to individuals being chosen, is it not? Not groups!

If you are concerned about whether God deals with individuals, then rest assured that he clearly does. He declares those who have faith in him (Jews and Gentiles) to be his people and to be "righteous." That is clear from Romans 4.
Yes, and we see in Romans 9, that our faith has a cause to it, which is God's choice:

Romans 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Lee: But where are entrance criteria mentioned in reference to Isaac, and Jacob, and Pharaoh?

Swordsman: I think that Paul establishes the entry criterium in his conclusion very clearly - It is by faith.
But where is this mentioned in reference to Isaac and Jacob and Pharaoh? The difficulty is that we cannot have two primary choices in the area of salvation, one must be dependent on the other. So we see "man chooses" and "God chooses," and then we have to not stop there! We can't just point to one set of verses or the other, and make our conclusion there.

What we need is a passage where man's choice and God's choice are related, where we see a dependency one way or the other. Such as here:

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Here we do have man's choice and God's choice appearing together, and the conclusion is that God's choice is primary, not man's.

Pr. 20:24 A man's steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand his own way?

Lee: Does faith have a cause? That is the next question here, I would say.

Acts 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Swordsman: As we know from the local context (Romans 9-11) and the broader context (Romans), Paul is trying to demonstrate that righteous comes to those of faith.
Is this the main point here, though?

Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make…
Romans 9:22 What if God, choosing…
Romans 9:23 What if he did this…
Romans 9:28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence…

Surely the emphasis is on God's choice here, not on righteousness coming through faith…

Paul is very clear - those who did not achieve righteousness MAY ACHIEVE IT - if they come in faith. The discussion is about faith, not election.
I don't think so, though!

Romans 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (ESV)

How can those God chooses to harden possibly believe? And if they can't, then we will hear of an objection…

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Lee: If the basis of salvation is people's decision, then how is God unjust? The question should not come up.

Swordsman: The question is rhetorical to introduce his conclusion to the issue he has presented at the beginning of Romans 9 - "It is not as though the word of God has failed."
No, this is a different question, this is not asking "Did God's word fail?" Another question is being raised, not about God's power, but about his justice. So again, why would anyone question God's justice, if man's decision is primary?

Swordsman: Gentiles are included through faith. Jews who do not believe are rejected by lack of faith. That is the bottom line.
Unless faith has a cause! We must not simply stop at the faith->salvation link…

Joshua 24:19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the Lord."

Lee: And they weren't…

Swordsman: Israel did choose to serve God in this ceremony!
They certainly thought they did! Only they didn't actually serve the Lord … as it turns out.

Deuteronomy 31:27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!

Swordsman: Read Deuteronomy 30. Moses clearly tells them that the choice between life and death is their choice.
Yes, and they tried to choose life, and they couldn't, even when they tried to serve the Lord.

Deuteronomy 31:21 I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath.

Which indicates then that man's choice is not at the helm...

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

Thanks again for the comments. I recognize that this understanding is a bit of a paradigm shift for us Protestants, but I believe it is closer to the literal meaning of the text.

Let me clarify a few things:

First, I am NOT saying that salvation does NOT come as a result of individual belief. Clearly, in Paul's theology salvation is "for all who believe" (Romans 3:22). We must believe the gospel to be saved. That is the clear teaching of the New Testament.

Second, I am not saying that God does not choose individuals in an instrumental fashion. He clearly chose Moses and Jacob and Pharaoh instrumentally (for a purpose).

What I am saying is that the topic area of Romans 9 through 11 is that God's Word of the covenant to Israel has not failed due to the inclusion of the Gentiles into that community by faith.

As a corrollary, I am saying that the idea that Romans 9 is about a divine pre-temporal decree of election for individuals before creation is simply not the case. It simply does not fit Paul's thesis and it does not fit his argument.

As you read chapter 9 you must keep in mind Paul's overall thesis for the letter to the Romans 1:16-17 -

For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”

Paul's argument builds piece by piece to show that God's righteousness is revealed through Christ to everyone who believes - the Jews and the Gentiles alike. The introduction of election as conceived by the Reformers simply shatters Paul's statement above and makes it mute.

Now I am sure to generate a reaction here, but I think we must be clear on the implications of this imposition on the text.

The power of God is not manifest in a "divine decree" for an individual. That is the MOST egotistical idea we can develop - that I am chosen and someone else is not; that I am special and someone else is not; that God loves me but not you. It is just another manifestation of the same sin that led to the Fall - the desire to be divine, or special over others. False humility that denies that this is an egotistical approach blinds itself to the inherent idea that it is our desire to be special that makes us believe that there is some criteria within God himself (what Reformers call "his good pleasure") that would make him choose me above another. No matter how much we desire to deny it, this theology is always saying that God made me and not another special (elect). This simply is what the fall of humanity is all about - the desire to be like God.

Where the power of God IS manifest is in the cross of Jesus Christ - where God himself descended to unite with humanity in its suffering that came as the result our degradation in the fall. That is the faith of Christ - the faithful of Christ - found in the cross. "The righteousness of God is revealed through faith (the faith of Christ) for faith (our faith)."

It is manifest for ALL who believe, irrespective of who they are and what they have done.

btw - the above diatribe of mine is not a statement about your view in particular, but about the overall doctrinal concept.

Now - to address your particular issues.

Hi Swordsman,

I agree that Paul addresses this concern, but I would hold that this is not his main point!


The only thing I can do here is point you to the original thesis given above as defined by Paul, and the direct issue being addressed in the text - "It is not as though the word of God has failed."

The issue that must be address is whether the covenant has failed since there is the majority of Jews rejected Christ (as did the majority of Gentiles at the time) and that Gentiles were being included into the covenant community and receiving the covenant promises that belong to the Jew. Note how Paul puts this before he begins addressing the perceived failure of God's Word - "to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah."

One thing that Paul definitely does NOT want to do is to have those in Roman believe that he is introducing a new, aberrant religion. Christianity is to be seen as Judaism in its final form. Therefore, Paul must show the continuity from the promise to Abraham to the new community composed of Jews and Gentiles alike.

Perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree here.


But "he can choose who he wants" and "who can resist God's will?" is referring to individuals being chosen, is it not? Not groups!


The statement is made in the context of Paul's overall argument. Because of his use of individual as examples, we often construe that the overall argument is directed towards individual election. But it is not. Up to this point Paul has simply argued that -

1. God is not restricted by the flesh as to whom he chooses for the covenant community (his subpoint in this part of the argument is found in 6b-7).

2. There is no injustice in God's choice (note the question in verse 14 - that is the issue he is addressing). In actuality, what would be injust would be to exclude those of faith on the basis of some arbitrary election of God - which is what Israel (in the argument) claimed.

3. The hardening of Israel as presented in Romans is NOT to damnation but to drive the gospel to the Gentile instead of insisting that Gentiles come into the covenant community by works of the flesh (circumcision). Just as Pharaoh's hardening was instrumental, so is Israel's. But it is not permanent, as I have demonstrated. Therefore, we cannot suggest that this is a hardening to damnation.

The questions (9:19) - "Why does he still find fault?" and "Who can resist his will? - must be asked in the context of the three things that Paul has established above - God is not restricted to the flesh (ethnic Israel) in his choice, he is just in his choice, and Israel's hardening is instrumental (not to damnation).

The question are posed in the light if Israel's hardening and apparent loss of the covenant. If God has "CAUSED" them to lose the covenant promises, then he does not have a right to reject Israel because that would make him unjust.

But the truth of Paul's argument is that THEY HAVE NOT LOST THE PROMISES! The promises are still there and can be received by faith in Christ. Look closely again at Paul's conclusion (9:31-32)-

"... but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,.."

The fact that Paul draws this conclusion DEMANDS (from the standpoint of the argument) that this discussion is about ISRAEL, not individuals. The premises must support the conclusion.

Again I want you to keep in mind what Paul tells us later in this overall argument - THESE SAME PEOPLE CAN REPENT! Romans 11:23-24 tells us -

"And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree."

Since Paul has left the door open to repentance of these same people, we cannot suggest that this is an eternal decree to damnation.


Yes, and we see in Romans 9, that our faith has a cause to it, which is God's choice:

Romans 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


Perhaps you can show where this specifically is speaking about faith. I see it nowhere in that text.

Since Paul continues on and says that IF THEY DO NOT PERSIST IN UNBELIEF (meaning that they become faithful) they will be grafted back in, we must see that God is hardening instrumentally - for a purpose.

God's mercy is clearly directed towards those who have faith in Christ. Paul says this throughout many of his letters. It is not ever stated that God gives faith as a result of his mercy.


But where is this mentioned in reference to Isaac and Jacob and Pharaoh? The difficulty is that we cannot have two primary choices in the area of salvation, one must be dependent on the other. So we see "man chooses" and "God chooses," and then we have to not stop there! We can't just point to one set of verses or the other, and make our conclusion there.

What we need is a passage where man's choice and God's choice are related, where we see a dependency one way or the other. Such as here:

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Here we do have man's choice and God's choice appearing together, and the conclusion is that God's choice is primary, not man's.

Pr. 20:24 A man's steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand his own way?


I think I have address 9:19 above, so I will not repeat myself.

Nowhere are we told that Esau did not believe in God. He simply did not carry the promise of God to his children (the Edomites).

You keep imposing this distinction of "two primary choices" on the text and ignoring Paul's conclusion. If Paul's conclusion in this argument as clearly stated in the text (9:30-33; 10:1-14) is that the Jews were rejected on the basis of their lack of faith and Gentiles are included because of their faith in Christ AND that those Jews who are excluded from the covenant community CAN BE INCLUDED by faith, then we cannot draw ANY OTHER conclusion from the text!

If there is a distinction, it is between salvation by faith and salvation by works (see Paul's conclusion).

To impose a divine decree of election on the text is to miss the point completely that Paul is making. The Jews WERE elected - elected to carry the promises of God and the covenant. And now, through UNBELIEF, they do not receive it. Instead, Gentiles who believe receive it. And Jews who believe also receive it.

That God chooses is evident throughout Scripture. He chooses those of faith.

The issue at hand is whether the Word of God has failed. It has not. Unbelieving Jews failed, not God.


Is this the main point here, though?

Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make…
Romans 9:22 What if God, choosing…
Romans 9:23 What if he did this…
Romans 9:28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence…

Surely the emphasis is on God's choice here, not on righteousness coming through faith…


You keep giving fragments of sentences to support you argument which exegetically should not be done.

But I have already demonstrated how these statement work within the argument that Paul presents, including a full analysis of the Potter argument. If you choose not to accept those arguments and analyses, I would suggest that YOU are simply CHOOSING to believe one thing above another - right?



Paul is very clear - those who did not achieve righteousness MAY ACHIEVE IT - if they come in faith. The discussion is about faith, not election.

I don't think so, though!

Romans 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (ESV)

How can those God chooses to harden possibly believe? And if they can't, then we will hear of an objection…

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

It is evident from the discussion that you hold to the Reformed view of this text. But I have given you several verses from the mouth of Paul that demonstrate that they can believe, including Romans 11:28-32. You have yet to address what Paul is saying in this text that concerns the very ones that YOU want to turn over to damnation -

"As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all."

What God has done in hardening Israel is simply to level the playing field. We all come to God in the same way - by faith.

You need to address this passage in your theology before claiming that they are elected to damnation.



The question is rhetorical to introduce his conclusion to the issue he has presented at the beginning of Romans 9 - "It is not as though the word of God has failed."

No, this is a different question, this is not asking "Did God's word fail?" Another question is being raised, not about God's power, but about his justice. So again, why would anyone question God's justice, if man's decision is primary?

Again, it is not a question about God's power. The issue of the failure of the covenant is a question of God's integrity towards his promises to Israel.

Again, you are imposing the issue of election on the text by making this a question of one man's choice above God's choice. But Paul conclusion does not even address this issue, so that is not Paul's intent. His conclusion distinguishes the righteousness that comes by faith over the righteous that fails to come by works.


Unless faith has a cause! We must not simply stop at the faith->salvation link…


The cause of faith, while an interesting discussion, is never addressed in Romans 9 through 11.


They certainly thought they did! Only they didn't actually serve the Lord … as it turns out.

Deuteronomy 31:27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!


So you agree that these passages are not dealing with individuals but with Israel as a whole people and as a covenant group, right?

If we look at individuals, we certainly must affirm that there are those WHO DID follow God.

It seems me that in trying to prove your point, you have simply proven mine. Since you are presenting the case that we must look at Israel as a whole and not at individuals to see their failure in obedience to God, clearly you are agreeing with me. Paul also addresses this issue of Israel as the corporate body in Romans 9 to 11.


Yes, and they tried to choose life, and they couldn't, even when they tried to serve the Lord.


See my comments above. Are you speaking of individuals or Israel as a whole.


Deuteronomy 31:21 I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath.

Which indicates then that man's choice is not at the helm...


lol - Actually, this indicates that it is man's choice - "I know what THEY ARE DISPOSED TO DO...". God is saying that it is THEIR disposition, not his.

Again, you cannot use a fragment of a sentence to prove something.

And again, you are arguing that the issue has to deal with Israel as a whole, NOT INDIVIDUALs. If you can see this, do you not think the Paul could see this issue as well? He is speaking corporately, just as you have been speaking corporately about Israel.

Swordman53

[lee_merrill]

Hi Swordsman,

Swordsman: What I am saying is that the topic area of Romans 9 through 11 is that God's Word of the covenant to Israel has not failed due to the inclusion of the Gentiles into that community by faith.
…
If Paul's conclusion in this argument as clearly stated in the text (9:30-33; 10:1-14) is that the Jews were rejected on the basis of their lack of faith and Gentiles are included because of their faith in Christ AND that those Jews who are excluded from the covenant community CAN BE INCLUDED by faith, then we cannot draw ANY OTHER conclusion from the text!
Even granted this conclusion, must we say there are no other points or implications here? As in John 10:34-36, where Jesus makes a point from an (incidental) implication in the text.

Paul's argument builds piece by piece to show that God's righteousness is revealed through Christ to everyone who believes - the Jews and the Gentiles alike. The introduction of election as conceived by the Reformers simply shatters Paul's statement [in Rom. 1:16-17: "the gospel … is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith"]
The difficulty though, is that man's choice and God's choice cannot both be ultimate causes. Now do we see verses that say "God chooses," as well as "man chooses"? If so, then man's choice being due to God's choice means Rom. 1:16-17 is consistent with Calvinistic election.

That is the MOST egotistical idea we can develop - that I am chosen and someone else is not; that I am special and someone else is not; that God loves me but not you.
I believe we may hope that God will save everyone, and I do believe most certainly that God loves every person.

Therefore, we cannot suggest that this is a hardening to damnation. … Since Paul has left the door open to repentance of these same people, we cannot suggest that this is an eternal decree to damnation.
Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.

Surely this means that the hardening will result in damnation, though the possibility is there for repentance, even after condemnation!

Romans 11:10-11 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

Romans 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Swordsman: Perhaps you can show where this specifically is speaking about faith. I see it nowhere in that text.

Since Paul continues on and says that IF THEY DO NOT PERSIST IN UNBELIEF (meaning that they become faithful) they will be grafted back in, we must see that God is hardening instrumentally - for a purpose.
The people being hardened, Paul prays for their salvation, as in Rom. 10:1 and also here:

Romans 9:3-4 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

Thus "mercy" here must include at least salvation, and the possibility of salvation doesn't mean the mercy and hardening concerns some other purpose! The possibility of salvation even makes it more plain that was is at issue here is people's salvation:

Romans 9:25-26 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

This is hardening at God's choice:

Romans 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction?

How can this be instrumental for some other purpose?

And also mercy, for salvation, at God's choice:

Romans 9:27-28 "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence…"

God's mercy is clearly directed towards those who have faith in Christ. Paul says this throughout many of his letters. It is not ever stated that God gives faith as a result of his mercy.
Here is the crux of the matter!

Psalm 22:9 ... you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast.

Acts 18:27 he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

Acts 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Surely this means faith is also given because of God's mercy.

1KI 18:37 Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Lee: Here we do have man's choice and God's choice appearing together, and the conclusion is that God's choice is primary, not man's.

Swordsman: The questions [in Rom. 9:19] must be asked in the context of the three things that Paul has established above - God is not restricted to the flesh (ethnic Israel) in his choice, he is just in his choice, and Israel's hardening is instrumental (not to damnation).

The questions are posed in the light of Israel's hardening and apparent loss of the covenant. If God has "CAUSED" them to lose the covenant promises, then he does not have a right to reject Israel because that would make him unjust.
But the point remains! If man's choice is primary, then Bob and Peter and Sally resist God's will, that is who resists God's will.

The question is not whether God's choice here is just, but whether we can choose at all…

You have yet to address what Paul is saying in this text that concerns the very ones that YOU want to turn over to damnation -

"As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved…
Yes, I believe God may choose everyone!

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

How is it that these enemies of God are all loved, according to election, if election is based on foreseen faith, and some of these will not repent?

The cause of faith, while an interesting discussion, is never addressed in Romans 9 through 11.
Is it not, though?

Romans 11:25-26 Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Not "until they believe"! Thus faith must have a cause here, and must be at God's discretion.

If we look at individuals, we certainly must affirm that there are those WHO DID follow God.
Yes, and we also see people who thought they could follow God, who could not, thus the implication here that faith is not at our discretion.

Since you are presenting the case that we must look at Israel as a whole and not at individuals to see their failure in obedience to God, clearly you are agreeing with me. Paul also addresses this issue of Israel as the corporate body in Romans 9 to 11.
But the group is made up of individuals, who are individually deciding, and whose choices have individual consequences for them, consequences concerning salvation.

Actually, this indicates that it is man's choice - "I know what THEY ARE DISPOSED TO DO...". God is saying that it is THEIR disposition, not his.
Even when they are trying to choose the Lord, and yet failing?

Again, you cannot use a fragment of a sentence to prove something.
Jesus did! In two instances: "You are gods" (John 10:34), "The God of the living" (Mt. 22:32). It's possible, though certainly this can be misused, if the part is out of context…

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

Hi Swordsman,

What I am saying is that the topic area of Romans 9 through 11 is that God's Word of the covenant to Israel has not failed due to the inclusion of the Gentiles into that community by faith.
…
If Paul's conclusion in this argument as clearly stated in the text (9:30-33; 10:1-14) is that the Jews were rejected on the basis of their lack of faith and Gentiles are included because of their faith in Christ AND that those Jews who are excluded from the covenant community CAN BE INCLUDED by faith, then we cannot draw ANY OTHER conclusion from the text!

Even granted this conclusion, must we say there are no other points or implications here? As in John 10:34-36, where Jesus makes a point from an (incidental) implication in the text.


Well, if, as I stated above, we conclude that "those Jews who are excluded from the covenant community CAN BE INCLUDED by faith", then one conclusion we CANNOT derive is that this is an election to damnation! The text simply will not support it.



Paul's argument builds piece by piece to show that God's righteousness is revealed through Christ to everyone who believes - the Jews and the Gentiles alike. The introduction of election as conceived by the Reformers simply shatters Paul's statement [in Rom. 1:16-17: "the gospel … is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith"


The difficulty though, is that man's choice and God's choice cannot both be ultimate causes. Now do we see verses that say "God chooses," as well as "man chooses"? If so, then man's choice being due to God's choice means Rom. 1:16-17 is consistent with Calvinistic election.

I really do not think "ultimate causes" is the topic of Paul's discourse, or that he is overly concern with that topic in Romans.

Again, the point is that this passage does not support that. Romans 9 speaks of Israel being excluded because of the lack of faith, but with the possibility of being included by faith (as in Romans 11). This is not a passage about election as defined by Reformers (Calvinists), but about faith. Jewish election is corporate.

Moreover, not all of God's choices are about salvation. He chooses for a variety of reasons. Moses, the example of Romans 9, was chosen as a leader to free Israel from bondage. Balaam, a false prophet, was chosen to bless Israel. Both Saul and David were chosen by God to be kings. But only one was considered righteous. The fact that God chooses for things other than salvation is a point consistently missed by Calvinist theologians. Romans 11:11-12 is very explicit -

So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

Paul's concept of the elect is simply those of faith (corporately). In Romans 9-11 he is explaining why all Israelites are not part of that group and why Gentiles are included - they have faith.

But, again, in these verses, Paul leaves the door open for repentance. Therefore, this cannot be an eternal decree of damnation.


I believe we may hope that God will save everyone, and I do believe most certainly that God loves every person.

That is an area that we can agree on. Understand that my comment was directed towards the theology, not yourself.


Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.

Surely this means that the hardening will result in damnation, though the possibility is there for repentance, even after condemnation!

Romans 11:10-11 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

The hardening will result in damnation only if they continue in it. If they come to Christ in faith (the lack of which has condemned them) then they will be saved.

The point is that this is not an ETERNAL decree of damnation, but an instrumental hardening to drive the gospel to the Gentiles. If you read the book of Acts, you will see that Paul specifically turns from the Synagogue ministry to direct preaching to the Gentiles because of lack of faith on the part of the Jews.


The people being hardened, Paul prays for their salvation, as in Rom. 10:1 and also here:

Romans 9:3-4 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

Thus "mercy" here must include at least salvation, and the possibility of salvation doesn't mean the mercy and hardening concerns some other purpose! The possibility of salvation even makes it more plain that was is at issue here is people's salvation:

Romans 9:25-26 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

This is hardening at God's choice:

Romans 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction?

How can this be instrumental for some other purpose?

And also mercy, for salvation, at God's choice:

Romans 9:27-28 "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence…"


You have quite a bit here and I am short of time. Let me just comment on the last verse. Here Paul says that "the Lord will carry our his sentence..." The sentence speaks of the judgment against Israel that Paul emphatically states is the result of lack of faith. If God were to execute a sentence on them arbitrarily due to a decree that He had enacted before time, God would be injust. If he acts on the basis of their behavior - he is just.

We do not need to see divine election to salvation or damnation in any way except in the sense that Paul intented - that Israel as a people are excluded from the root of Abraham because of lack of faith and the Gentiles are included because they have faith. This does not mean that every Israelite is excluded. Paul is emphatic that this is not the case. Nor does it mean that every Gentile is included - Paul never says this. All Paul is saying is what he has said throughout Romans - The just will live by faith.


Here is the crux of the matter!

Psalm 22:9 ... you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast.

Acts 18:27 he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

Acts 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Surely this means faith is also given because of God's mercy.

1KI 18:37 Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.


That God enables believe in some way is accepted by both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. Calvinists see this as regeneration. Non-Calvinists see this as a work of the Spirit in enlightenment.

But that is NOT the message of Romans 9.


But the point remains! If man's choice is primary, then Bob and Peter and Sally resist God's will, that is who resists God's will.

The question is not whether God's choice here is just, but whether we can choose at all…


Since God commands us to choose, then we must assume we choose or deny the command of God.



You have yet to address what Paul is saying in this text that concerns the very ones that YOU want to turn over to damnation -

"As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved…

Yes, I believe God may choose everyone!

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

How is it that these enemies of God are all loved, according to election, if election is based on foreseen faith, and some of these will not repent?

You almost sound like a universalist.

Since I do not believe individual election is taught in scripture at all, then I think you have missed my point. I do not hold to the classic Arminian position.

I would suggest that you read Shank's book - "Elect in the Son."


The cause of faith, while an interesting discussion, is never addressed in Romans 9 through 11.

Is it not, though?

Romans 11:25-26 Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Not "until they believe"! Thus faith must have a cause here, and must be at God's discretion.

You need to go back to verse 23 -


And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.




If we look at individuals, we certainly must affirm that there are those WHO DID follow God.

Yes, and we also see people who thought they could follow God, who could not, thus the implication here that faith is not at our discretion.

There is no implication in Romans of anything like that. Faith is the response to the message of what Christ has done - plain and simple. Do not impose a Calvinist paradigm of faith on Paul.



Since you are presenting the case that we must look at Israel as a whole and not at individuals to see their failure in obedience to God, clearly you are agreeing with me. Paul also addresses this issue of Israel as the corporate body in Romans 9 to 11.

But the group is made up of individuals, who are individually deciding, and whose choices have individual consequences for them, consequences concerning salvation.

Perhaps the point is NOT that the group is made up of individuals, but that individuals are simply members of a group. If the group is called "elect" and we enter that group through faith, then faith is the means by which God chooses those who are his own.

This is Paul's consistent message in Romans.



Actually, this indicates that it is man's choice - "I know what THEY ARE DISPOSED TO DO...". God is saying that it is THEIR disposition, not his.

Even when they are trying to choose the Lord, and yet failing?

What God is telling Moses is that the Israelites were disposed not to follow him. But it was their disposition, not something God wanted.





Again, you cannot use a fragment of a sentence to prove something.

Jesus did! In two instances: "You are gods" (John 10:34), "The God of the living" (Mt. 22:32). It's possible, though certainly this can be misused, if the part is out of context…

Context is the reason you cannot use a fragment of sentence. To understand what Jesus was saying you need to read both the Psalm that it was taken from and his commentary on it.

Context is critical for any good exegesis. You will note that in my exegesis of Romans 9, I examined the entire text, not just isolated clauses to prove my point.

Swordman53

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Swordsman,

Swordsman: … if, as I stated above, we conclude that "those Jews who are excluded from the covenant community CAN BE INCLUDED by faith", then one conclusion we CANNOT derive is that this is an election to damnation! The text simply will not support it.
I agree that this cannot mean chosen for hell without any hope, for "possibilities" with God must be interpreted differently than we would interpret them, given that God knows the future.

Lee: The difficulty though, is that man's choice and God's choice cannot both be ultimate causes…

Swordsman: Romans 9 speaks of Israel being excluded because of the lack of faith, but with the possibility of being included by faith (as in Romans 11). This is not a passage about election as defined by Reformers (Calvinists), but about faith.
Which implies man's choice is primary! This question is not irrelevant to Rom. 9-11, at all. Yet the mention of faith bringing salvation, and God's command to believe, does not prove that faith is from man!

Matthew 14:28-29 "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." "Come," he said.

Jewish election is corporate.
Then how does Rom. 9 explain Arminian corporate election? There is no mention of conditions for entering one of these groups, it seems the analogies are inappropriate.

The fact that God chooses for things other than salvation is a point consistently missed by Calvinist theologians. Romans 11:11-12 is very explicit - "So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles..
Isn't this about … salvation? Salvation has come to the Gentiles, and it has not come to those who have stumbled, because of them stumbling:

Romans 9:32 Why not? Because they pursued [righteousness] not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Paul's concept of the elect is simply those of faith (corporately).
Then "God chose you" really is a way of saying "God chose those who would choose him"? That's not a real choice on God's part, though, could he have chosen those who would reject him? Maybe he could have chosen only some of those who would have chosen him, though:

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.

How do Arminians explain God hardening people he sees would have believed, and some of them, most of them, then die without believing?

Paul leaves the door open for repentance. Therefore, this cannot be an eternal decree of damnation.
It certainly was God's decision not to perform miracles in Tyre and Sidon (Mt. 11:21) so that they would repent, and they died still unrepentant.

Lee: I do believe most certainly that God loves every person…

Swordsman: That is an area that we can agree on.
Glad to agree! Yes, saying "God loves you" to someone we meet need not be done with any hesitation.

Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.

Lee: Surely this means that the hardening will result in damnation, though the possibility is there for repentance…

Swordsman: The hardening will result in damnation only if they continue in it. If they come to Christ in faith (the lack of which has condemned them) then they will be saved.
But not most of them, by the prophecy that "only the remnant will be saved," thus again we have an impossibility before us, certainty that most of them will perish, though we do not usually know which ones. As in Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, though he knew they would not (it was written in Scripture) accept him.

Swordsman: If God were to execute a sentence on them arbitrarily due to a decree that He had enacted before time, God would be unjust. If he acts on the basis of their behavior - he is just.
Certainly arbitrariness is unjust, yet is a decision based on other factors than what people do, unjust? We have this question before us here, even:

Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

The same lump of clay! This is all God's decision, and Isaiah echoes this thought:

Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?"

Clay is passive, the analogy used here implies it is God's decision to make us into a vessel of honor ("not because of righteous deeds we have done, but because of his mercy") or a vessel of wrath.

Acts 16:14 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Lee: Surely this means faith is also given because of God's mercy.

Swordsman: Non-Calvinists see this as a work of the Spirit in enlightenment.
But should we interpret this as grace to be able to decide one way or the other? I think more is implied, this is not "opened her heart to be able to respond." Opening of the heart is a response, and not just a potential one:

2 Corinthians 6:13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.

Paul is saying "trust us!" That would make "opened her heart" correspond to faith, in Acts 16:14.

Here is the other side of this issue, again, by God's decision:

Isaiah 63:17 Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?

They are even seeking to fear God, and follow his ways, and God yet is hardening them now.

Swordsman: Since God commands us to choose, then we must assume we choose or deny the command of God.
Well how about here?

Ezekiel 18:31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit.

Yet can we do this? Though it is a command, God must do this himself:

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

So a command to believe, a command to choose, does not imply we are able to do this.

Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs…

Lee: How is it that these enemies of God are all loved, according to election, if election is based on foreseen faith, and some of these will not repent?

Swordsman: Since I do not believe individual election is taught in scripture at all, then I think you have missed my point. I do not hold to the classic Arminian position.

I would suggest that you read Shank's book - "Elect in the Son."
Yes, but how would this fit with any form of corporate election? Can you summarize your interpretation here, it would take me some time to order and read a book! I do believe that we are given reason to hope that all will be saved, even after judgment, that is what I think this verse means.

Romans 11:25-26 Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Lee: Not "until they believe"!

Swordsman: "And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in…"
Then Israel can overturn the prophecy in Rom. 11:25-26 by believing now, or in Paul's day? I think the only way to resolve this is to say the unbelief, and belief here, is by God's decision, not man's.

Swordsman: If the group is called "elect" and we enter that group through faith, then faith is the means by which God chooses those who are his own.
Then we have an election like the ones they used to have in Russia, where someone else chooses the (only) candidate on the ballot. But those are not considered real elections.

Swordsman: Context is the reason you cannot use a fragment of sentence.
But Jesus did this! Certainly this can only be done when the context supports the meaning being quoted, but it can be appropriately done, I think.

Blessings,
Lee

[troybal]

Great article!

This debate over election was settled for me by Paul in Ephesians 1. In verse 13 he tells the Ephesians that they too were elected, predestined and redeemed after they heard the message of truth, not before.

I have a question for you. Your article includes the following:

"But if we are to say that God has decreed that those who come to him IN FAITH are those he will redeem, and then he does move those of faith into the group we would call "the elect", then this fits the thesis and the argument very well. It also explains the need for Romans 9 as an explanation that Jewish heritage and ceremonial law is not what makes one a member of God's family."

I see people using the terms "ceremonial law" and "moral law", but I can't find that distinction made in the scriptures. The same Greek word is used throughout the new testament that is translated "law". It's hard for me to accept that when the word "law" appears in the new testament a large amount of analysis is required to find out which law God is talking about, especially when He used the same word every time. What does the scripture define as the "law"?

[Swordman53]

Lee,

I am not ignoring your post. I am just buried right now. I will respond as soon as possible.

Swordman53

[Swordman53]

Great article!
"But if we are to say that God has decreed that those who come to him IN FAITH are those he will redeem, and then he does move those of faith into the group we would call "the elect", then this fits the thesis and the argument very well. It also explains the need for Romans 9 as an explanation that Jewish heritage and ceremonial law is not what makes one a member of God's family."

I see people using the terms "ceremonial law" and "moral law", but I can't find that distinction made in the scriptures. The same Greek word is used throughout the new testament that is translated "law". It's hard for me to accept that when the word "law" appears in the new testament a large amount of analysis is required to find out which law God is talking about, especially when He used the same word every time. What does the scripture define as the "law"?

The question is excellent and needs to be addressed. Unfortunately my time is limited. Here are a few points:

In Galatians, when Paul is speaking of the Law, he clearly includes circumcision as a cultic practice which has caused the problem in the Galatian church. Therefore, in some sense, we must say that cultic or cultural activity (the two seem to be united to a high degree in Israel) is involved in one use of the term. That the Law of Moses included moral injunctions is also evident.

However, in Romans 2:14-16 tells us the following:

"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all."

This passage does not seem to include the cultic practice of circumcision because Gentiles would not go out and get circumcised instinctively. It was not part of their social or cultic paradigm. Contextually, we can say that Paul is speaking about the moral aspects of the Law in this passage.

Swordman53

[Swordman53]

Hi Lee,

See my comments below.

Hi again, Swordsman,
I agree that this cannot mean chosen for hell without any hope, for "possibilities" with God must be interpreted differently than we would interpret them, given that God knows the future.

And the "possibility" is that they may come in faith, whereby God will accept them. I think we are agreeing.

Given that, we cannot use Romans 9 as a description of election to salvation or damnation.



Swordsman: Romans 9 speaks of Israel being excluded because of the lack of faith, but with the possibility of being included by faith (as in Romans 11). This is not a passage about election as defined by Reformers (Calvinists), but about faith.

Which implies man's choice is primary! This question is not irrelevant to Rom. 9-11, at all. Yet the mention of faith bringing salvation, and God's command to believe, does not prove that faith is from man!

Matthew 14:28-29 "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." "Come," he said.

The above verse sounds more like Christ responding to a demand of Peter than vice versa.

But in actuality, man's choice is not primary in my system. God's choice is primary and God has chosen to redeem all who come to him in faith.

But demanding that God be restricted to pretemporal decrees, you are making the decrees themselves sovereign over God. That is, you are not allowing God to respond to faith at all. Therefore, God is not free in your paradigm. In effect, you reduce God to natural law.

But if God can choose - in time - to redeem someone who comes to him in faith, then he is truly free to do so. Apart from time (in some sense), there is no such thing as correlation or causality since there is no ordering of events.


Then how does Rom. 9 explain Arminian corporate election? There is no mention of conditions for entering one of these groups, it seems the analogies are inappropriate.

First, classic Arminians do not believe in corporate election. They believe in election by foreknowledge. That is not my position.

Second, Romans 9 to 11 very explicitly states that faith is the means by which we are included or excluded from the group. Therefore, the condition is quite explicit - faith.

Finally, The Old Testament paradigm of the "Remnant" that Paul uses in this passage is not based on an arbitrary inclusion of individuals, but is a definition of the faithful in Israel. Therefore, this is not a new idea of Paul's, but is his clarification of what he believes is taught by the prophets.



The fact that God chooses for things other than salvation is a point consistently missed by Calvinist theologians. Romans 11:11-12 is very explicit - "So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles..

Isn't this about … salvation? Salvation has come to the Gentiles, and it has not come to those who have stumbled, because of them stumbling:

Romans 9:32 Why not? Because they pursued [righteousness] not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

It is about justification. "The just shall live by faith." The argument builds through a series of layers, one of which is demonstrating that God does choose. But I think I have demonstrated that God's choices are not always to salvation. Moreover, you have also admitted that the hardening of the Jews is not necessarily eternal. Therefore, this is not the eternal decree the Calvinists claim it to be.

Also, look at your own quote above - "Why not? Because they pursued [righteousness] not by faith."

What else does Paul need to say to convince you? They failed to achieve righteousness (a declaration by God in the Calvinists system) BECAUSE of lack of faith, not because of a decree.



Paul's concept of the elect is simply those of faith (corporately).


Then "God chose you" really is a way of saying "God chose those who would choose him"? That's not a real choice on God's part, though, could he have chosen those who would reject him? Maybe he could have chosen only some of those who would have chosen him, though:

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.

How do Arminians explain God hardening people he sees would have believed, and some of them, most of them, then die without believing?


Did you not agree above that the hardening is not eternal? Since this is a corporate prophecy speaking of Israel as a whole, I do not see why this is an issue for you. Not every single Israelite failed to listen. The Remnant (the faithful) remained.



Paul leaves the door open for repentance. Therefore, this cannot be an eternal decree of damnation.

It certainly was God's decision not to perform miracles in Tyre and Sidon (Mt. 11:21) so that they would repent, and they died still unrepentant.

Jesus is speaking of Israel's response to his own miracles there. Are you suggesting that Christ should have come to Tyre and Sidon and not to Israel? How then would he have fulfilled his promise to Israel?



The hardening will result in damnation only if they continue in it. If they come to Christ in faith (the lack of which has condemned them) then they will be saved.

But not most of them, by the prophecy that "only the remnant will be saved," thus again we have an impossibility before us, certainty that most of them will perish, though we do not usually know which ones. As in Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, though he knew they would not (it was written in Scripture) accept him.

My friend, only a remnant of the Gentiles are saved as well. Most will perish. The point Paul is making is that their ethnic origin will not save them because they lack faith. Re-read my original text.



If God were to execute a sentence on them arbitrarily due to a decree that He had enacted before time, God would be unjust. If he acts on the basis of their behavior - he is just.

Certainly arbitrariness is unjust, yet is a decision based on other factors than what people do, unjust? We have this question before us here, even:

Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

The same lump of clay! This is all God's decision, and Isaiah echoes this thought:

Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?"

Clay is passive, the analogy used here implies it is God's decision to make us into a vessel of honor ("not because of righteous deeds we have done, but because of his mercy") or a vessel of wrath.

Paul is echoing Jeremiah, not Isaiah. Rad Jeremiah 18 and my original analysis.

What criteria or factors would you give to God to make such a choice outside of faith?



Non-Calvinists see this as a work of the Spirit in enlightenment.

But should we interpret this as grace to be able to decide one way or the other? I think more is implied, this is not "opened her heart to be able to respond." Opening of the heart is a response, and not just a potential one:

2 Corinthians 6:13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.

Paul is saying "trust us!" That would make "opened her heart" correspond to faith, in Acts 16:14.

Here is the other side of this issue, again, by God's decision:

Isaiah 63:17 Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?

They are even seeking to fear God, and follow his ways, and God yet is hardening them now.

2 Corinthians 6:13 is a command for the people to open their hearts. Therefore, in this case they are to open their own hearts.

Isaiah 63:17 is part of a prophecy of the people's faithlessness - as a people. Note earlier in the chapter that God speaks of "vindication" - he is just in the hardening because of faithlessness on the part of the people. But since you seem to agree that the hardening is not forever, then you will agree that those of faith are saved, right?



Since God commands us to choose, then we must assume we choose or deny the command of God.


Well how about here?

Ezekiel 18:31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit.

Yet can we do this? Though it is a command, God must do this himself:

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

So a command to believe, a command to choose, does not imply we are able to do this.


Let me suggest the following - Deut. 30. This chapter clearly says the choice is ours and we are able to do it.


Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs…

Lee: How is it that these enemies of God are all loved, according to election, if election is based on foreseen faith, and some of these will not repent?

Swordsman: Since I do not believe individual election is taught in scripture at all, then I think you have missed my point. I do not hold to the classic Arminian position.

I would suggest that you read Shank's book - "Elect in the Son."

Yes, but how would this fit with any form of corporate election? Can you summarize your interpretation here, it would take me some time to order and read a book! I do believe that we are given reason to hope that all will be saved, even after judgment, that is what I think this verse means.

My interpretation is very simple. God chooses those who come in faith WHEN they come in faith. Universal redemption, which I believe you are advocating is not believed by Calvinists. As to the validity of that proposition - that is another discussion altogether. But it is not the topic of Romans 9-11.



"And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in…"

Then Israel can overturn the prophecy in Rom. 11:25-26 by believing now, or in Paul's day? I think the only way to resolve this is to say the unbelief, and belief here, is by God's decision, not man's.

That is quite a leap of logic. Paul says nothing of the sort in the text and it appears you are imposing it on the text to preserve some set of beliefs.

Paul's point consistently is that we fail to obtain God's justification because we lack faith, not because he does not give it. And we receive God's justification when we come in faith, not when God gives faith.

I am sorry if this does not fit your paradigm of redemption. It clearly does not fit the Calvinist's paradigm. But it does fit Scripture -

30What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.



"And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in…"

Then we have an election like the ones they used to have in Russia, where someone else chooses the (only) candidate on the ballot. But those are not considered real elections.

I think this is quite a different use of the word.

Swordman53

[r4043]

Pauls efforts are toward the Gentiles.The main population in that time was Jewish and Hebrew. Paul,by Gods Grace and Love and inspiratiion,made knowen,to the Gentiles,tht Gods love was expressed through our Lord Jesus Christ. The veryone they crucified. Paul is letting them (Gentiles) know that it is through that Love that they are also included in the so called chosen. To this day the law is part of our lives, even though the law was abolished through our Lord Jesus Christ. You see,we can follow the law and know tht by so doing we know our Lord Jesus Christ,and that we strive to walk with Jesus. However,we are mortals and fall sort etc. but keep in mind that our Lord Jesus Christ died for SINNERS, not the rightious,and we all sinnfull,therefore we inherit the Loveand salvation of God,only because we belive in Jesus Christ our Lord Faith and Grace are gifts of God and our choice to choose is also a gift. Is money our God ??? or do we belive in our Lord Jesus Christ ? The two cannot exist together. The key to all of our existance is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Eph 2 : 8--9 For is by Gods Grace that you have been saved,through Faith, It is not the result of your own efforts,but Gods Gift so that no can boast about it. It is a gift, we paid nothing. We must pray for one another,for all mankind no matter what ! and it is very important that we do not judge one another or we will indeed be judged.
Again I take no credit for these words as it is most certain God the Holy Spirit who directs me so all the Glory be to God and we thank God for one another and for all our comradery.
With a thankfull heart to our God r4043

[Peleg]

Pauls efforts are toward the Gentiles.The main population in that time was Jewish and Hebrew. Paul,by Gods Grace and Love and inspiratiion,made knowen,to the Gentiles,tht Gods love was expressed through our Lord Jesus Christ. The veryone they crucified. Paul is letting them (Gentiles) know that it is through that Love that they are also included in the so called chosen. To this day the law is part of our lives, even though the law was abolished through our Lord Jesus Christ. You see,we can follow the law and know tht by so doing we know our Lord Jesus Christ,and that we strive to walk with Jesus. However,we are mortals and fall sort etc. but keep in mind that our Lord Jesus Christ died for SINNERS, not the rightious,and we all sinnfull,therefore we inherit the Loveand salvation of God,only because we belive in Jesus Christ our Lord Faith and Grace are gifts of God and our choice to choose is also a gift. Is money our God ??? or do we belive in our Lord Jesus Christ ? The two cannot exist together. The key to all of our existance is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Eph 2 : 8--9 For is by Gods Grace that you have been saved,through Faith, It is not the result of your own efforts,but Gods Gift so that no can boast about it. It is a gift, we paid nothing. We must pray for one another,for all mankind no matter what ! and it is very important that we do not judge one another or we will indeed be judged.
Again I take no credit for these words as it is most certain God the Holy Spirit who directs me so all the Glory be to God and we thank God for one another and for all our comradery.
With a thankfull heart to our God r4043

This will be my first post. It'll have to be one of confusion. Your response, r4043, is a bit rambling. What does your comment about money vs. Jesus have to do w/ the topic at hand? Also, are you claiming that you were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what you did? Eeek, that's a bit far reaching wouldn't you say?

[Swordman53]

Pauls efforts are toward the Gentiles.The main population in that time was Jewish and Hebrew. Paul,by Gods Grace and Love and inspiratiion,made knowen,to the Gentiles,tht Gods love was expressed through our Lord Jesus Christ. The veryone they crucified. Paul is letting them (Gentiles) know that it is through that Love that they are also included in the so called chosen.

Thanks for the comments.

Just two quick thoughts here - During the first century (when Paul writes), Jews accounted for only about 5% of the population of the Romans Empire. They were far from being the main population. However, they were the covenant people. What God does in Christ is open the covenant to all who have faith - Jews and Gentiles alike.

Peter's accusation in his Pentacost sermon is that the responsibility of the death of Jesus falls on the Jews, not the Gentiles (Acts 2:36). Those gathered in Jerusalem for the Pentacost celebration were Jews and proselytes (those who coverted to Judaism) from all over the Roman Empire (Acts 2:10,22).

Swordman53

[r4043]

academic credentials are no guarantee of clarity in communiution. God is not complicated,1day is a 1,000 years to God.He (God) sent phophets (the before) and now he (God) gives us the after. It sometimes appears that an advanced degree in theology can uniquely qualify a person to make a simple message coonfusing or complicated--anything but clear. It appears that the advanced degree,s from a seminary make the subject matter very obscure.
as we continue to advance in age and continue to persue the Holy Word of God, and seek the Wisdom,Knowledge,and understanding,that we receive only from our Lord God in Heaven, we mature into a spiritual world and seperate our-selves from the mortal world and perseverance, always continuing to seek God's Kingdom. We never forget where all things come from and Who gives them to us. Our success on this earth is not of our making but is by the Grace of God.
This is not rambling, it is the truth which is sometime difficult for some to understand. When you read Rom: 9 you can see that all things come from God and to know that you have to read the whole Word and always ask for God's Grace and give HIm all the Glory. I am not puffed up nor am I proud,but very thankful and at peace.
Swordman3 if I have offended you in anyway I do apoligize to you and you are certainly in my prayers. You are very well read however you might have the wrong attitude about what you are blessed with. I am not judging you but only observing your comments and I am convinced that we are only mortals and not perfect.
If you read what I wrote,with an open mind you will see that I put all my trust and faith in God the Father in Heaven.
I do pray that you continue to spread the Word and Love of God and I also pray that God will bless you with His Love and Kindness and Grace now and forever.
r4043

[Swordman53]

R4043,

No offense taken. I really did not comment on your position. I was just clarifying some items for you concerning what scripture was teaching - particularly in Acts 2. I certainly believe you approach the word sincerely, as do Lee and others that dialog with me. Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree.

The problem I have with the traditional Reformed take on Romans 9 is that it is theologically biased and tends to read into the text more than I believe Paul intended. What I see as obscuring the text is 400 years of theology that is imposed on it.

Some have read my thesis and noted that they had never reflected on the text in this way - examining how the various logical arguments support Paul's conclusion of salvation by faith. Instead they had simply been taught by others all their lives what this text must be saying.

As for my advances academically and/or spiritually, that is for others to judge, not me. In particular, I will stand before the great Judge one day and give my account of my handling of his Word. That is why I have always been careful of what it says.

Swordman53

academic credentials are no guarantee of clarity in communiution. God is not complicated,1day is a 1,000 years to God.He (God) sent phophets (the before) and now he (God) gives us the after. It sometimes appears that an advanced degree in theology can uniquely qualify a person to make a simple message coonfusing or complicated--anything but clear. It appears that the advanced degree,s from a seminary make the subject matter very obscure.

as we continue to advance in age and continue to persue the Holy Word of God, and seek the Wisdom,Knowledge,and understanding,that we receive only from our Lord God in Heaven, we mature into a spiritual world and seperate our-selves from the mortal world and perseverance, always continuing to seek God's Kingdom. We never forget where all things come from and Who gives them to us. Our success on this earth is not of our making but is by the Grace of God.

This is not rambling, it is the truth which is sometime difficult for some to understand. When you read Rom: 9 you can see that all things come from God and to know that you have to read the whole Word and always ask for God's Grace and give HIm all the Glory. I am not puffed up nor am I proud,but very thankful and at peace.

Swordman3 if I have offended you in anyway I do apoligize to you and you are certainly in my prayers. You are very well read however you might have the wrong attitude about what you are blessed with. I am not judging you but only observing your comments and I am convinced that we are only mortals and not perfect.

If you read what I wrote,with an open mind you will see that I put all my trust and faith in God the Father in Heaven.

I do pray that you continue to spread the Word and Love of God and I also pray that God will bless you with His Love and Kindness and Grace now and forever.

r4043

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Swordsman,

Lee: ... "possibilities" with God must be interpreted differently than we would interpret them, given that God knows the future.

Swordsman: And the "possibility" is that they may come in faith, whereby God will accept them. I think we are agreeing.

Given that, we cannot use Romans 9 as a description of election to salvation or damnation.
This doesn't seem to be an unavoidable conclusion, though. I could hold here that a possibility of salvation, from God's perspective, means we may hope that all will be saved.

Lee: Yet the mention of faith bringing salvation, and God's command to believe, does not prove that faith is from man!

Matthew 14:28-29 "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." "Come," he said.

Swordsman: The above verse sounds more like Christ responding to a demand of Peter than vice versa.
But Peter couldn't walk on water! That was my point, Jesus told him to do what was utterly impossible for a person to do, thus a command does not imply an ability on our part.

But in actuality, man's choice is not primary in my system. God's choice is primary and God has chosen to redeem all who come to him in faith.
But then who really has the primary choice here? If God's choice is based on seeing man's choice, then isn't man's choice primary?

But if God can choose - in time - to redeem someone who comes to him in faith, then he is truly free to do so.
Then I must ask if God chooses all who he sees would choose him? It appears he does not, as mentioned previously, with the Israelites in Isaiah's day, who were hardened, lest they believe (Isa. 6:10-11; and also again in Jn. 12:40), and most of them died in unbelief, Tyre and Sidon could be mentioned, similarly (Mt. 11:21).

Lee: How do Arminians explain God hardening people he sees would have believed, and some of them, most of them, then die without believing?

Swordsman: Did you not agree above that the hardening is not eternal? Since this is a corporate prophecy speaking of Israel as a whole, I do not see why this is an issue for you. Not every single Israelite failed to listen.
Yes, but what about those who did fail to listen, who would have believed if God had not hardened them, "lest they turn, and I would heal them"?

Swordsman: Are you suggesting that Christ should have come to Tyre and Sidon and not to Israel? How then would he have fulfilled his promise to Israel?
No, I'm just saying that God does not apparently bring about faith in all he sees would have believed and repented, given appropriate circumstances.

Swordsman: But demanding that God be restricted to pretemporal decrees, you are making the decrees themselves sovereign over God. That is, you are not allowing God to respond to faith at all.
I think in your view, we must be concluding there, not in my view, that God does not have a real choice! There God is restricted, but if he makes his decrees (outside of time), then indeed he is not restricted.

Apart from time (in some sense), there is no such thing as correlation or causality since there is no ordering of events.
But we often (usually!) will have a logical ordering of reasons, when we make a decision, even though we don't sit down and think through the chain one link at a time: "I went to Jewel grocery today to pick up some food because stores have food and Jewel is a good store and I needed to prepare for Thanksgiving dinner and the turkey has to cook overnight."

Lee: Then how does Rom. 9 explain Arminian corporate election? There is no mention of conditions for entering one of these groups...

Swordsman: First, classic Arminians do not believe in corporate election. They believe in election by foreknowledge. That is not my position.
Alrighty, then I will ask how Rom. 9 explains corporate election in your view?

Second, Romans 9 to 11 very explicitly states that faith is the means by which we are included or excluded from the group.
But I was asking why the analogies do not mention conditions for entering a group, these analogies then seem rather inappropriate. God picks existing people (groups, if we read this as corporate election) in these analogies, not future groups based on some condition the members will satisfy.

Finally, The Old Testament paradigm of the "Remnant" that Paul uses in this passage is not based on an arbitrary inclusion of individuals, but is a definition of the faithful in Israel.
But "left us descendants / a remnant" (Rom. 9:29,27) implies that this is God's decision, ultimately.

Romans 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

By grace, that is the source, and then, as a result, through faith (Eph. 2:5,8)!

Also, look at your own quote above - "Why not? Because they pursued [righteousness] not by faith."

What else does Paul need to say to convince you? They failed to achieve righteousness (a declaration by God in the Calvinists system) BECAUSE of lack of faith, not because of a decree.
Well then, it's about salvation! That was the point I was after here. And I am arguing that faith has a cause, again, the mention that faith brings salvation does not prove that there is no cause to our faith!

James 5:18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

Must we conclude that the rain here was due solely to Elijah, and his prayer, here? The rain came because he prayed, A caused B, therefore A is uncaused? No, actually A was caused, too:

1 Kings 18:1 After a long time, in the third year, the word of the Lord came to Elijah: "Go and present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the land."

My friend, only a remnant of the Gentiles are saved as well. Most will perish. The point Paul is making is that their ethnic origin will not save them because they lack faith.
Yes, but again, why must we insist that this is Paul's only point in this entire passage?

Lee: Clay is passive, the analogy used here implies it is God's decision to make us into a vessel of honor ("not because of righteous deeds we have done, but because of his mercy") or a vessel of wrath.

Swordsman: What criteria or factors would you give to God to make such a choice outside of faith?
To reveal his glory to one group, and his wrath and power in another group, from ... the same lump of clay! Thus the criteria is in God's purpose and not "by human decision" (Jn. 1:13), or by "man's desire or effort" (Rom. 9:16), but "by grace" (Rom. 11:5) and mercy (Rom. 9:16; Titus 3:5), and this brings faith (Acts 18:27), and faith brings salvation.

2 Corinthians 6:13 is a command for the people to open their hearts. Therefore, in this case they are to open their own hearts.
This is believers, though, and I hold that they can really choose. But this also shows that opening the heart is a response, and thus "The Lord opened her heart" (Acts 16:14) means God (completely) brought about Lydia's salvation.

But since you seem to agree that the hardening is not forever, then you will agree that those of faith are saved, right?
Yes, I agree!

Ezekiel 18:31 ... and get [ESV: make yourselves] a new heart and a new spirit.

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Lee: So a command to believe, a command to choose, does not imply we are able to do this.

Swordsman: Let me suggest the following - Deut. 30. This chapter clearly says the choice is ours and we are able to do it.
Well no, it has a command to choose! But what I am saying is that a command does not imply we are able to do this, Eze. 18:31;36:26 is a clear example, concerning salvation, which demonstrates just this point.

God chooses those who come in faith WHEN they come in faith.
Then does God not know the future?

"And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in…"

Lee: Then Israel can overturn the prophecy in Rom. 11:25-26 by believing now, or in Paul's day? I think the only way to resolve this is to say the unbelief, and belief here, is by God's decision...

Swordsman: That is quite a leap of logic. Paul says nothing of the sort in the text and it appears you are imposing it on the text to preserve some set of beliefs.
Isn't this directly implied though, if the prediction is a firm one, that only the remnant will be saved?

Swordsman: Paul's point consistently is that we fail to obtain God's justification because we lack faith, not because he does not give it. And we receive God's justification when we come in faith, not when God gives faith.

James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Faith is good, and is it not a gift? And further...

James 1:18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth...

Therefore faith is a choice, God's choice! And it has a cause:

Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

Hello Lee,

Unfortunately, I cannot spend much time to address your comments. I am preparing for two classes I need to teach this summer.

I will give a few comments and then I will hang up my keyboard (as far as TheologyWeb is concerned) until mid-July.

Bob Anderson
Swordman53

Hi again, Swordsman,


This doesn't seem to be an unavoidable conclusion, though. I could hold here that a possibility of salvation, from God's perspective, means we may hope that all will be saved.


Actually, by definition it is unavoidable. The Reformed doctrine of election states that individuals are predetermined to be either saved or damned before the world begins, and the decision is irrefutable.

If someone can repent from the hardening, which is what Romans 11 tells us, then the hardening in Romans 9 is NOT to damnation. Therefore, whatever else is going on in this hardening, we are not talking about an eternal decree of election.

Since you believe there is hope that they may be saved, I would suggest that you agree with me and do not really believe in election as defined by Reformers.

You might want to look at Shank's book, Elect in the Son. You may find it interesting.


But Peter couldn't walk on water! That was my point, Jesus told him to do what was utterly impossible for a person to do, thus a command does not imply an ability on our part.


Peter was able to walk on water by faith. When his faith wavered, he sank. No one ever says that God does not empower faith. But the Reformed view is somewhat different. In the Reformed view, faith is given. Since Peter's faith wavered, either this example is misunderstood or faith works somewhat differently than what the Reformed view postulates.


But then who really has the primary choice here? If God's choice is based on seeing man's choice, then isn't man's choice primary?


Not at all. God is not under any obligation to do anything, except as his nature dictates. Since God is love, he will consistently respond in love.

You are overly concerned about choices when you should understand that the incarnation was the great choice of God for all of us.


Then I must ask if God chooses all who he sees would choose him? It appears he does not, as mentioned previously, with the Israelites in Isaiah's day, who were hardened, lest they believe (Isa. 6:10-11; and also again in Jn. 12:40), and most of them died in unbelief, Tyre and Sidon could be mentioned, similarly (Mt. 11:21).


I do not hold to election from God's foreknowledge. I hold to corporate election which is somewhat different. Reformers and Arminians place the choices before time, which is what you are doing. I would place the choice of individuals in time, when they believe.

There are always more than two options. The problem is that most Reformers generally can only see two options - their own and all others.


Yes, but what about those who did fail to listen, who would have believed if God had not hardened them, "lest they turn, and I would heal them"?

Are you quoting the prophecy from Isaiah or Jesus' use of the prophecy?

In either case, the text is speaking corporately - to the whole of Israel. There is always a remnant who do hear and believe. And we know that there are those who refuse to hear and then eventually repent and believe (like Paul himself).

The general confusion concerns general statements use concerning people as a whole (or a whole people group) and statement directed at individuals. When Jesus uses this saying in Matthew 13:15 note that he does not say "these people", but he says "this people". He is speaking corporately of the crowd.

Do not confuse a general statement with specifics.

However, in the light of what Paul says in Romans 9 to 11, the hardening is not permanent and is not to damnation. Therefore, the hardening referred to in Jesus' use of the Isaiah prophecy is temporary and not to damnation.


No, I'm just saying that God does not apparently bring about faith in all he sees would have believed and repented, given appropriate circumstances.


I have not said that he does. That actually mixes the Reformed view with the Arminian view, and becomes circular. I hold to neither view. (There is always more than 2 ways, Lee.)


I think in your view, we must be concluding there, not in my view, that God does not have a real choice! There God is restricted, but if he makes his decrees (outside of time), then indeed he is not restricted.


I think you misunderstand my view. God always has choices. The cross was the choice of God. The incarnation was the choice of God. It was God's choice to save those of faith.

In reality, some Reformers believe that God has no choices. His actions are fixed by decrees that are non-temporal and cannot be broken. Instead of God being immutable in his nature, the decrees become immutable and bind God to them. Therefore, God has no choices in time to respond to anyone outside of the decrees. God is not truly free in this position.

However, I would suggest that there are no decrees outside of time because when God speaks things must occur. God speaking is always causal and to be causal means that there must be temporal sequencing of events in some manner.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that God is restricted in time?


But we often (usually!) will have a logical ordering of reasons, when we make a decision, even though we don't sit down and think through the chain one link at a time: "I went to Jewel grocery today to pick up some food because stores have food and Jewel is a good store and I needed to prepare for Thanksgiving dinner and the turkey has to cook overnight."


And God has given us the reason in his word for why he saves us - it is by the faithful work of Christ for our faith (belief).


Alrighty, then I will ask how Rom. 9 explains corporate election in your view?


I think my essay explains this. Corporate election is completing the promise to Abraham by reforming the covenant community to be composed of those who have faith in Christ - Jews and Gentiles alike. Romans 9 says that explicitly.


24...including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they shall be called children of the living God.”
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved;
...
30 What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.



But I was asking why the analogies do not mention conditions for entering a group, these analogies then seem rather inappropriate. God picks existing people (groups, if we read this as corporate election) in these analogies, not future groups based on some condition the members will satisfy.


The analogies are subcomponents of the overall argument, not the complete arguments in and of themselves. They provide the following information to the argument:

1. God does not choose based on the flesh (the Jacob analogy).
2. There is no injustice in God's choice (that is the specific questiona asked).
3. Human beings do not dictate the covenant, God does. He is free to remold the covenant community (the potter analogy from Jeremiah 18).
4. He chooses from Jews (the remnant) and Gentiles ("not my people").
5. He chooses on the basis of faith.

This last item is Paul's final conclusion. Why would we assume something different than what Paul explicitly states is his conclusion?


But "left us descendants / a remnant" (Rom. 9:29,27) implies that this is God's decision, ultimately.

Romans 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

By grace, that is the source, and then, as a result, through faith (Eph. 2:5,8)!

God always acts in his mercy in relation to fallen humanity.

Ephesians would require us to get into quite a long discussion which must wait until mid-July. Let me just state that I have persuaded hard-core Calvinists that this text is not saying what many Reformers think. They remain Calvinists, but they understand the text within the context is speaking of a different kind of faith.

Well then, it's about salvation! That was the point I was after here. And I am arguing that faith has a cause, again, the mention that faith brings salvation does not prove that there is no cause to our faith!

James 5:18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

Must we conclude that the rain here was due solely to Elijah, and his prayer, here? The rain came because he prayed, A caused B, therefore A is uncaused? No, actually A was caused, too:

1 Kings 18:1 After a long time, in the third year, the word of the Lord came to Elijah: "Go and present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the land."


lol - Well if you want to make that point I will allow it. But then we simply must say that salvation is base on God's response to faith.

The passage says nothing about the source of faith, as I have noted before.


Yes, but again, why must we insist that this is Paul's only point in this entire passage?


We must state that it is his explicitly defined conclusion to the discourse. We come to God by faith - when we believe - and that is when he declares us righteous. That is the paradigm established in Romans 4.

The Reformed view of individual election denies the possibility of repenting and therefore is a conclusion that cannot be drawn due to Paul's further statements in Romans 11:23 -

And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.



What criteria or factors would you give to God to make such a choice outside of faith?

To reveal his glory to one group, and his wrath and power in another group, from ... the same lump of clay! Thus the criteria is in God's purpose and not "by human decision" (Jn. 1:13), or by "man's desire or effort" (Rom. 9:16), but "by grace" (Rom. 11:5) and mercy (Rom. 9:16; Titus 3:5), and this brings faith (Acts 18:27), and faith brings salvation.


So God is an egotist who just makes arbitrary decisions and that somehow brings him glory?

God gains great glory by redeeming the lost. His glory is found in that declaration of righteousness that is given to those of faith.

The whole of Romans is about faith, Lee. John 1:13 is only half a sentence. You should include the rest (verse 12) -

But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God,


This is believers, though, and I hold that they can really choose. But this also shows that opening the heart is a response, and thus "The Lord opened her heart" (Acts 16:14) means God (completely) brought about Lydia's salvation.

If it is about believers, then you should not have used it as an example since our discussion has been about whether unbelieves can choose.

Well no, it has a command to choose! But what I am saying is that a command does not imply we are able to do this, Eze. 18:31;36:26 is a clear example, concerning salvation, which demonstrates just this point.

Look again.

11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 14 [b]No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.[b]


Then does God not know the future?

I have not said that. I simply said he chooses when people believe. It has nothing to do with knowing the future. It has to do with when God is acting in redemption.

Isn't this directly implied though, if the prediction is a firm one, that only the remnant will be saved?
[QUOTE]
There is nothing of the sort directly implied in the text of Romans 9.
[QUOTE=lee_merrill]
James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Faith is good, and is it not a gift? And further...

James 1:18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth...

Therefore faith is a choice, God's choice! And it has a cause:

Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Cheese cake is good. Is it the gift of God or did I get it at the supermarket?

You need far more to connect these two text.

Faith does come from hearing. The gift that is given to us is not some magical elixer that mysteriously gives us "faith." What is given to us is the OBJECT of faith. Faith must have something to which it adheres. The gospel of Jesus Christ is given through the preaching of the Word. That is how faith is given - by giving us something to believe in.

Now, Lee, we shall have to pause for two months. I have much to accomplish and I wish you well.

Perhaps we shall discuss Ephesians 2:8-9 next. I may be preparing a text for this summer on that one and will submit it when I am satisfied with it. You can comment then.

"“Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and worthy of praise;
and glorious is your name forever!
For you are just in all you have done;
all your works are true and your ways right,
and all your judgments are true."

-- From the Prayer of Azariah


Swordman53

[lee_merrill]

Thanks for the discussion, Bob! I appreciate the opportunity to think about these issues, and wish you well in conducting others through Scripture.

"“Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and worthy of praise;
and glorious is your name forever!
For you are just in all you have done;
all your works are true and your ways right,
and all your judgments are true."

-- From the Prayer of Azariah
Amen!

"I find no fault in him..."

Blessings,
Lee

[Swordman53]

Thanks for the discussion, Bob! I appreciate the opportunity to think about these issues, and wish you well in conducting others through Scripture.


Amen!

"I find no fault in him..."

Blessings,
Lee

Thanks Lee,

Be in prayer for me. I am going to try to teach two summer school classes simultaneously - Biblical Doctrines and Old Testament. If I succeed, I should probably write a paper on project management next.

[lee_merrill]

Be in prayer for me. I am going to try to teach two summer school classes simultaneously - Biblical Doctrines and Old Testament. If I succeed, I should probably write a paper on project management next.
Will pray! That is quite a lot to teach, both OT and NT (!) might be more, but I'm not sure what else would be...

1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Best wishes,
Lee