i have class tomorrow, what the heck am i doing posting?

[Sheepdog]

something that i was thinking about lately, in regards to Romans 9 something-or-other (sorry, it's late, too lazy to hunt for the passage), which is a central text on predestination. the specific point i want to focus on is where Paul starts talking agout Jacob and Esau. forget the fact that the overal context of 9-11 is the Jews and why Isreal in general isn't biting onto the Gospel-- also that Paul cites Malachi, where in the OT it is actually talking about Isreal and the decendants of Esau as a whole... for this post i am assuming it has individual significance. we are given the impression from Calvinists and others that Jacob and Esau are a prime example of unconditional election, where God chooses one over another for no other reason than it is His will.

yet, as i was thinking, i remembered back to the original story of Jacob and Esau. remember what happened? Esau decided his birthright was not as important as the stew Jake was making. now, if Paul was arguing for unconditional election, why did He use an example where one is expressing his aparent choice in the matter of his election (so to speak)?

now, this is not even close to an argument for conditional election, but seems to hurt the hermeneutic Calvinists apply to this text. comments? rotten tomatoes for throwing may be found in Dr. Moo's lab :clown:

[doogieduff]

It's a lot simpler to me. Salvation is never mentioned in Romans chapter 9. I don't see how calvinists pull individual predestination for salvation out of a chapter with no mention of salvation. To show how stupid the calvinists theology is, we see Paul, in the very beginning of chapter 10, directly after the so-called "predestination" chapter, pray for Israel's salvation. Why in the world would Paul pray for Israel's salvation if he understood salvation as the calvinists' want us to believe? Well, he wouldn't.

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

[Solly]

Gen 25.23. The choice is made.

[Xmansmommy]

Solly isn't Genesis 25:23 specifically talking about service...one nation serving the other? The other nation being stronger? How does that relate to salvation?

[Solly]

Xmom

It is a case of "This is that"; it is a picture. From a Reformed perspective - or mine at least - Israel is typical of God's dealings with mankind - both as fallen and as saved. Their calling, their blessings, they institutions etc are figures of Christ and his people; their rebellions and backslidings are figures of humanity at large. On the one hand the people of Israel in the promised land with the temple and the city are the people of God - what earlier theologians termed "the church of the OT", just as John shows us in Revelation at the end. Equally, in their rebellion in the land they replay the Garden of Eden Fall, that the world might see what the problem is, and have no excuse. In spite of all the blessings, advantages, and all that pertains to them 9.5,6, yet they still went wrong. That is the reason for the Gospel, for a righteousness by faith, not by the law.

The service that Israel was called to was to the furtherance of God's plan of salvation, and to which they themselves were called to partake, but which they constantly rejected, so that only a remnant were saved. Hence Paul's concern, firstly, that in his day they would not receive the clear gospel and Christ. But also, secondly, having established to believers his Gospel in the first half of Romans, and showing the assurance we can have in it though Christ and the Spirit, the biggest objection that might be raised against it is that the Jews themselves did not believe. Paul is addressing those concerns. To see this as merely a matter of service by Esau or Jacob - and again I point out as Paul did, they were chosen while in the womb, and they indeed fulfilled those callings placed upon them, despite their own failures, which was part of the point SD raised - is to raise the question of whether the OT is concerned with individual salvation at all. Paul knows that, which is why he calls it the obedience of faith. It didn't mean God's promises had failed, or that the Gospel was not the power of God unto salvation, just because the majority of Jews did not receive the Gospel or Christ.
It's also so that in Jacob's day the arena of salvation was severely restricted, not only to the bloodline family, but also in its expression - which was not some kind of decisionism, but very much active service. Service and Salvation were intertwined, and loyalty to a saving God was their form of faith, even in the cut and thrust of late bronze age politics. But then, they are now as well, despite the Lordship Controversy in the States.

Also, why would Paul wish to be accursed if it was merely a matter of Israel's service? What has mercy 9.15 and wrath 9.22 got to do with service, and why does he mention following after righteousness 9.30 if it is only service, and in which he concludes chapter 9:32,33

Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works of the law. For they stumbled at the stumblingstone...whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

[Xmansmommy]

Thanks for your quick and thorough response Solly. I ask questions to better understand your view. Thanks for allowing me to do so. :smile:

[Stephen]

The Jacob and Easau verse could be used as an example because it says "When they were not yet born, and had nothing good or evil Jacob I loved and Esau I hated." Not just "Jacob I love, Esau I hate"

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 08:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205778#post205778)
Solly:

Gen 25.23. The choice is made.

ok. from a temporal point of view God made the choice first. i am in no way disputing that. what i am disputing is the begged question that God's choice in 25:23 wasn't dependant (in part) on Esau's later screw up's.

also, i think you are broadening the scope more than Paul intended in Rom. 9-11. as you rightly pointed out Paul is responding to the objection that if God's plan is a success, why are His own people so dang stuborn. but what i just don't see is this:
"Israel is typical of God's dealings with mankind - both as fallen and as saved. Their calling, their blessings, they institutions etc are figures of Christ and his people; their rebellions and backslidings are figures of humanity at large." perhaps i missed it and if so, i'll read the chapters again. however, i think that while it may be great in principle, the text isn't justifying that presupposition.

but, i even in my theology it would be silly to call into question whether the OT dealt with salvation. how often do we here in the NT the example of Abraham being credited for his righteousness because of his faith, not his works? the issue today is that we incorrectly separate faith and works as though they could exist independantly. but that's another topic.

[Solly]

Today @ 12:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206239#post206239)
Sheepdog:



ok. from a temporal point of view God made the choice first. i am in no way disputing that. what i am disputing is the begged question that God's choice in 25:23 wasn't dependant (in part) on Esau's later screw up's.

Since the choice was made before they were born, I don't see how. If you say it was foreknowledge, then wouldn't it be more resonable to remove doubt and say, "Esau have I rejected/hated because he is a prat". But then Jacob was a deceiver...


also, i think you are broadening the scope more than Paul intended in Rom. 9-11. as you rightly pointed out Paul is responding to the objection that if God's plan is a success, why are His own people so dang stuborn. but what i just don't see is this:
"Israel is typical of God's dealings with mankind - both as fallen and as saved. Their calling, their blessings, they institutions etc are figures of Christ and his people; their rebellions and backslidings are figures of humanity at large."
perhaps i missed it and if so, i'll read the chapters again. however, i think that while it may be great in principle, the text isn't justifying that presupposition.

Of course, I am reading it in the context of all of Romans; 9-11 isn't a bit added in, it follows the whole argument, and that arguments shows us in ch 3
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Israel are THE example; in so far as they failed, we all failed. If they couldn't succeed with all the advantages they had, what hope do we have. None at all. I do not hold to the idea there there is something intrinsically special about Israel; they were nothing, a wandering aramean was their father, but God picked them up, cleaned them down, gave them the service of God, and they blew it. They are a vast historical parable.


but, i even in my theology it would be silly to call into question whether the OT dealt with salvation. how often do we here in the NT the example of Abraham being credited for his righteousness because of his faith, not his works? the issue today is that we incorrectly separate faith and works as though they could exist independantly. but that's another topic.


I know, I was stretching the argument to make a point; equally, those who try to get salvation out of this text to avoid the doctrine of personal election are going too far as well. paul names names, Jacob, Esau, Pharoah; he could have dealt with it in the way of nations Israel, Egypt, etc, but he didn't - that would have solved everything; he could have gone to Deut 7.6-8 and Israel's calling then - and some maintain a heavy Penteteuchal influence on Paul's writing here - but he didn't. He made it personal.
And I drew attention to your final point by reference to the Lordship controversy and the obedience of faith.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 03:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206515#post206515)
Solly:

Since the choice was made before they were born, I don't see how. If you say it was foreknowledge, then wouldn't it be more resonable to remove doubt and say, "Esau have I rejected/hated because he is a prat". But then Jacob was a deceiver...

while we are at it, why didn't Paul give us a long Treatise on Free Will and God's Sovereignty? i don't know why, but it seems God intentionally allowed the silence to exist that later caused the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians (on a side note, the debate is not new, there is evidence Rabbis debated this around Jesus' time).

my best response to the above would be, Paul likely wanted to emphasize the "God chose before" aspect of it. you may disagree with this, but i am interpreting Paul in light of the whole of Scripture (e.g. John 15:1-8, John 3:14-21, Deut. 30:19, Rom. 10:9, etc.)


Of course, I am reading it in the context of all of Romans; 9-11 isn't a bit added in, it follows the whole argument, and that arguments shows us in ch 3
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Israel are THE example; in so far as they failed, we all failed. If they couldn't succeed with all the advantages they had, what hope do we have. None at all. I do not hold to the idea there there is something intrinsically special about Israel; they were nothing, a wandering aramean was their father, but God picked them up, cleaned them down, gave them the service of God, and they blew it. They are a vast historical parable.

the whole argument, though, is the Gospel. ok, granted Isreal is an example, i don't mind correcting myself. nevertheless, you seem to want to take the example beyond Paul's aparent intentions with it. Isreal is an example of how mankind cannot obtain righeousness apart from faith-- but can when God is working through them. Your argument is that she is an example of how God deals with mankind in total. whether or not that is correct, you are using the analogy beyond the scope of what Romans seeks to accomplish with it. (note, if we stretch the illustration too far, we end up with force fitting Christianity into a familial, secular nation rather than the spiritual Kingdom of God).


I know, I was stretching the argument to make a point; equally, those who try to get salvation out of this text to avoid the doctrine of personal election are going too far as well. paul names names, Jacob, Esau, Pharoah; he could have dealt with it in the way of nations Israel, Egypt, etc, but he didn't - that would have solved everything; he could have gone to Deut 7.6-8 and Israel's calling then - and some maintain a heavy Penteteuchal influence on Paul's writing here - but he didn't. He made it personal.

because in a community oriented society, the leaders of a people represent the people as a whole. did Pharoah, by himself, ride out to attack the Isrealites? of course not! and on Jacob/Esau, read the passage Paul is citing:
The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness." Malachi 1:1-3.

Why did Paul seem to make it personal? he is only following suit of what the OT says, but look at it: God is using Jacob as a representative of Isreal as a whole (i.e. compare "How have you loved us?" with "I have loved Jacob." if your theology is correct, what kind of Red Herring of an answer did God give them!)


And I drew attention to your final point by reference to the Lordship controversy and the obedience of faith.

honestly, i am not too familiar with this controversy. i may have dealt with it before, and if it is what i think it is, my objection to it remains the same: we create a dichotomy between faith and obediance that didn't exist in the minds of the NT writers. i don't believe the two can exist apart from each other (cf. John 15:1-8)

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 07:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206235#post206235)
Stephen:

The Jacob and Easau verse could be used as an example because it says "When they were not yet born, and had nothing good or evil Jacob I loved and Esau I hated." Not just "Jacob I love, Esau I hate"

actually, i'd like to see this explored. you see, there was a nuance in Kione Greek which was in past tense, but denoted a perpetual condition, i.e. ongoing up to today). often this nuance doesn't get translated well into the English. what i wonder is, whether that is happening here in the Greek, or not. that is, if it only denotes that God loved Jake and "hated" E before they were born, or if the text is saying they are loved/"hated" up to "today."

[Arminian]

paul names names, Jacob, Esau, Pharoah; he could have dealt with it in the way of nations Israel, Egypt, etc, but he didn't - that would have solved everything; he could have gone to Deut 7.6-8 and Israel's calling then - and some maintain a heavy Penteteuchal influence on Paul's writing here - but he didn't. He made it personal.

It's not personal at all. Paul is using his opposition's prooftext against them. They claim physical descent from Abraham is proof of their election to the "inheritance" promised to Abraham. So their argument is their claim of Abraham --> Isaac --> Jacob. If Israel according to the flesh is God's elect, then Gentiles should join them to partake of the promise of the "inheritance" promised to Abraham and his seeds (a covenant of election).

As the OT said, "in Abraham" will the nations be blessed. So the promise, of course, extended to Jacob and his seeds ("in Jacob" will the nations be blessed). Paul takes the argument a step back. He quotes the verse from Mal. which is about Israel and the nations and then goes back to the time when the decision (about those two nations) was made. Does the story support the argument that God's Israel is according to physical descent, or that it is according to the promise? Those are the only two alternatives Paul offers. Paul shows that the inheritance is according to a promise.

By making this argument, Paul is not addressing individualism. In fact, the very nature of the argument is proof against individualism. Both parties are using the verse in question to prove that those outside must join their "people" to partake of the "promise." The nature of the argument in and of itself is proof against individual election (an election outside of an existing covenant) and proof for a covenant election based upon the nature of the promise. To whom was the promise made (Gal 3:16-17)? Who are Abraham's true children? How can this be? Because of "the promise" to the Seed.

Of course, the Jewish perspective (and against individualism) is best explained by a Calvinist:

Cranford: ‘Election and Ethnicity: Paul's View of Israel in Romans 9.1-13', JSNT 50 (1993) 27-41.

Was the God's Israel really according to physical descent? According to Paul, it wasn't. So what's the difference if it includes believing Gentiles!?

[geebob]

equally, those who try to get salvation out of this text to avoid the doctrine of personal election are going too far as well. paul names names, Jacob, Esau, Pharoah;

yes well, paul also speaks of pots, but it's not because he wants to make a point out of pottery.


he could have dealt with it in the way of nations Israel, Egypt, etc, but he didn't

and he could have continued to use examples from human beings but he eventually started to talk about pottery.




without consideration of the corporate aspect, I'd say these passages are still underdeterminative of individualistic election to salvation and damnation because service is not consistently used as a metaphore for damnation. here we have a "this is that" usage of the choosing of E and J. Where it subsequently reads "Esau hated, Jacob loved," we have the fulfillment of the prophecy. But did this prophecy have to be filled in this way? I don't see why? Since when was hatred synonomous with service. since when was the only way to serve to be an object of hatred?

And of course there's the issue to the effect that hatred contrasted with love can mean preferred less and preferred.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 10:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206985#post206985)
Arminian:
Of course, the Jewish perspective (and against individualism) is best explained by a Calvinist:

Cranford: ‘Election and Ethnicity: Paul's View of Israel in Romans 9.1-13', JSNT 50 (1993) 27-41.



Like, we just happen to have JSNT (Or NTS, or anything else that costs more to subscribe to than we spend on a week's shopping) lying around to consult. You academics!! :lol:

Sheepdog:but it seems God intentionally allowed the silence to exist that later caused the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians
Solly: Actually, the Arminians disagreed with the Calvinists.

Sheepdog: Isreal is an example of how mankind cannot obtain righeousness apart from faith-- but can when God is working through them.
Solly: Israel is the example that with all the advantages, unless God is at work, nothing happens. We merely disagree on what "God working through them" means.

Sheepdog: Your argument is that she is an example of how God deals with mankind in total.
Solly: I didn't say in total, my argument is drawn from the first part of Romans; it regards salvation; I am not a proto-theonomist.

Sheepdog: did Pharoah, by himself, ride out
Solly: Pharoah made the decisions, it was God who hardened his heart and said he would even when Moses was at the burning bush. Hence the whole people suffered. imputation through a federal head again, as well as individual aspects.

Sheepdog: Malachi quote.
Solly: You just have to read Rom 3.10-18 to see that the original context is not always on Paul's mind.
-----
Arminian: It's not personal at all. Paul is using his opposition's prooftext against them. They claim physical descent from Abraham is proof of their election to the "inheritance" promised to Abraham. So their argument is their claim of Abraham --> Isaac --> Jacob. If Israel according to the flesh is God's elect, then Gentiles should join them to partake of the promise of the "inheritance" promised to Abraham and his seeds (a covenant of election).

Solly: I disagree, as you would expect me too, esp to the "covenantal nomism" aspects. Yes, he is referrng to Jewish proof texts, but not against the Jews but for the Christians - why would he be writing to Jews in a letter to the church at Rome? He is bolstering his argument for the guaranteed success of the Church in the face of Jewish failure. The promise has not been of none effect; his argument is, this is that; though the Jews used the formula A-->I-->J, yet Paul is showing how they misunderstood, because they were not of faith, therefore not of the promise. And faith is a very individualist thing. And God has chosen the arena in which faith will exist, and to whom it will exist. He is not addressing individualism, but he is addressing individuals, each one of whom has believed the promise, and 9.15,16 are very individual verses, as are 10.8-10 which follow on from Paul's case here.
I have no problem with aspects of the corporate election case, but it generally seems to be employed to undermine the doctrine of individual election, and that makes it suspect. It also doesn't explain Paul's anguish in the beginning of ch 9
Lastly, I am just not that impressed by whatever is the latest novelty that happens to emerge from academia, and ferretted away in some back issue, or in expensive tomes nobody has time to read: novelty and originality is the name of the game, as Thomas Oden pointed out, rather than passing on the faith once delivered to the saints.

----
Geebob: The potter imagery is found in the OT; Paul is a Jew, and knows his scriptures. it is a very good way of putting humans in their place, lest they be lifted up above themselves.

[Arminian]

Solly,


Solly: I disagree, as you would expect me too, esp to the "covenantal nomism" aspects.

I didn't mention that.


Yes, he is referrng to Jewish proof texts, but not against the Jews but for the Christians - why would he be writing to Jews in a letter to the church at Rome?

Because there were Jews there, just as in Galatia. He even addresses the Jews directly and asks questions for them. (The letter isn't ONLY addressed to Jews, if that's what you are thinking.)


He is bolstering his argument for the guaranteed success of the Church in the face of Jewish failure. The promise has not been of none effect; his argument is, this is that; though the Jews used the formula A-->I-->J, yet Paul is showing how they misunderstood, because they were not of faith, therefore not of the promise.

Well, to be clear, Paul is discussing why those of faith have claim to the promise as God's Israel, as opposed to those who don't. Again, this just proves my point.


And faith is a very individualist thing.

So? I don't see how this helps your point. Remember, Paul is arguing for the inheritance being for God's Israel. Who is God's Israel? Once that is extablished, his point about how one enters comes into play: circumcision/faith.


And God has chosen the arena in which faith will exist, and to whom it will exist. He is not addressing individualism, but he is addressing individuals, each one of whom has believed the promise, and 9.15,16 are very individual verses, as are 10.8-10 which follow on from Paul's case here.

Those verses make my point as well. See my past posts.


I have no problem with aspects of the corporate election case, but it generally seems to be employed to undermine the doctrine of individual election, and that makes it suspect.

I'm just talking about exegesis. I never used the terminology you just used.


it generally seems to be employed to undermine the doctrine of individual election, and that makes it suspect

In other words, if it conflicts with your presuppositions, its suspect.


It also doesn't explain Paul's anguish in the beginning of ch 9

Why? Israel according to the flesh is condemned. How should he feel?

Note that nothing is going to change the fact that Israel of the flesh will be condemned. NOTHING! Why? Because if they were saved, God's word actually WOULD have failed. Note how Paul opens and closes his book with a reference to the OT being his proof.


Lastly, I am just not that impressed by whatever is the latest novelty that happens to emerge from academia, and ferretted away in some back issue, or in expensive tomes nobody has time to read: novelty and originality is the name of the game,

This sounds like some kind of insult Pee Wee Herman would give. Who is it that is defending the latest novelty that happens to emerge from academia, just for the sake of novelty and originality? Please tell me so that I can hunt him down and straighten him out. Who is this person or people?


as Thomas Oden pointed out, rather than passing on the faith once delivered to the saints.

This is just childish posturing. That does impress the choir, however. Besides begging the question, it doesn't match up with what we know of the early saints, nor is it supported by the text.

But perhaps Oden is one of those non-acedemic early saints who has never published in expensive tomes, or ferretted away in some back issue.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 06:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207888#post207888)
Arminian:

Solly,
Because there were Jews there, just as in Galatia. He even addresses the Jews directly and asks questions for them. (The letter isn't ONLY addressed to Jews, if that's what you are thinking.)

No, I am not thinking that, I am thinking that the letter wasn't addressed to the Jews at all, it was addressed to the Church in Rome, made up of converted Gentiles and Jews. My commentary sources point out that he is using a diatribe method, dialoguing with an imaginary partner in order to bring out his own views. it doesn't mean real Jews were there, or the focus of his thoughts.


In other words, if it conflicts with your presuppositions, its suspect.
No, if it conflicts with what has been handed down to me, I am not about to just throw it up because others don't like what I believe, and have worked hard to undermine those beliefs. there is no such thing as a neutral interpretation of scripture, and certainly in Romans the issue has been either/or with regard to the Reformed view.


Why? Israel according to the flesh is condemned. How should he feel?Note that nothing is going to change the fact that Israel of the flesh will be condemned. NOTHING! Why? Because if they were saved, God's word actually WOULD have failed. Note how Paul opens and closes his book with a reference to the OT being his proof.

That depends on which bit you are highlighting. It is not Israel in the flesh as such, but Israel under the law as a means to righteousness. Paul is proof that those who are of Israel in the flesh can be saved, just as Gentiles can, through the righteousness of God which is by faith. Our emphases differe, since Reformed see it as God's sovereign choice to elect a remnant ou of Israel as out of the Gentiles, and the rest are condemned for going their own way. God chose to give the promises to the elect, and he chose those who would be elected. Tht is the point of the Jacob/Esau story, that despite the workings of men, God's sovereign choice came through.


This sounds like some kind of insult Pee Wee Herman would give.
Never heard of him/her.

Who is it that is defending the latest novelty that happens to emerge from academia, just for the sake of novelty and originality? Please tell me so that I can hunt him down and straighten him out. Who is this person or people?

Cranford: ‘Election and Ethnicity: Paul's View of Israel in Romans 9.1-13', JSNT 50 (1993) 27-41.
What is this supposed to mean to anyone, bar the few here who have access to the locked doors of academic libraries, to be able to find a ten year old text? Yet I am supposed to take your word for it that our views are wrong? Some bright spark has published an essay, and the Reformed world comes crashing down?


But perhaps Oden is one of those non-academic early saints who has never published in expensive tomes, or ferretted away in some back issue.

Oden is an academic, but he also remembers that he is writing for and to the Church, which is what I miss from a lot of the stuff I read, with their bibliographies stuffed with NTS, Sac Bib, JBL etc., and brought to mind by your reference above.

[Sheepdog]

09-10-2003 @ 08:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207504#post207504)
Solly:


Sheepdog:but it seems God intentionally allowed the silence to exist that later caused the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians
Solly: Actually, the Arminians disagreed with the Calvinists.

true. kind of off topic, but true.


Sheepdog: Isreal is an example of how mankind cannot obtain righeousness apart from faith-- but can when God is working through them.
Solly: Israel is the example that with all the advantages, unless God is at work, nothing happens. We merely disagree on what "God working through them" means.

ok.


Sheepdog: Your argument is that she is an example of how God deals with mankind in total.
Solly: I didn't say in total, my argument is drawn from the first part of Romans; it regards salvation; I am not a proto-theonomist.

hrmm... i'll reread your first post. i may have misunderstood you first time around.


Sheepdog: did Pharoah, by himself, ride out
Solly: Pharoah made the decisions, it was God who hardened his heart and said he would even when Moses was at the burning bush. Hence the whole people suffered. imputation through a federal head again, as well as individual aspects.

err... were the punishments on Egypt, or on the people? yes, the people suffered, but my intended focus is on the headship aspect of this.


Sheepdog: Malachi quote.
Solly: You just have to read Rom 3.10-18 to see that the original context is not always on Paul's mind.

weak analogy: the contexts of the respective quotes more or less agree with Paul's use of these passages. no quoting out of context as a fallacy is committed here. however, your argument would have Paul fallaciously quoting out of context for the Malachi quote.



Geebob: The potter imagery is found in the OT; Paul is a Jew, and knows his scriptures. it is a very good way of putting humans in their place, lest they be lifted up above themselves.

heh, something we can agree on :thumb:

[Arminian]

No, I am not thinking that, I am thinking that the letter wasn't addressed to the Jews at all, it was addressed to the Church in Rome, made up of converted Gentiles and Jews. My commentary sources point out that he is using a diatribe method, dialoguing with an imaginary partner in order to bring out his own views. it doesn't mean real Jews were there, or the focus of his thoughts.

Well, I see that you are distinguishing between Jews and converted Jews, but that is no argument against what I've said.

As we know from Paul's writings and Luke's writings, the issue of Gentile inclusion continued to be an issue long after Paul's conversion. Paul's dispute with the "men from James" described in Galatians is a fine example. Even Peter was sucked in.

Romans shows signs of the same issues. Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome more than a decade before his death, so the initial Roman church was (in theory) entirely Gentile for quite a while. Following Claudius' death in 54, Nero allowed to the Jews to return. Paul's book arrives at a critical time for these Churches, since it would be natural for Gentiles to exclude Jews based upon their (the Gentile's) existing status before God as believing Gentiles, and for Jews to claim covenant exclusivity over and against the Gentiles.


Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?...17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. ]
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

"You" in Greek in not editorial or literary. It applies to actual people. In chapter 2 (quoted above) Paul addresses those who are physically Jews (2:25) and compares them to those who are truly Jews (2:29). Paul, here (and other places in the book) is addressing people with incorrect thinking on this issue: Jews. Anyone who thinks this way is Paul's opposition, as we know from his corpus.

The issue Paul wishes to clarify is the nature of God's Israel. He will silence his opposition by showing how God's righteousness (His covenant faithfulness to Abraham) was fulfilled by and in Messiah. God's people, therefore, are the true Jews (circumcised in the heart), the true children of Abraham, and the true Israel of God.


Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy,

Christ's faithfulness makes the Gentiles accepted with the Jews. This is how God "confirm[ed] the promises made to the patriarchs." This is Paul's argument for why Jews and Gentiles should accept one another. This is the issue at hand! There are Jews in the audience at Rome who DO exclude Gentiles and "boast" in their possession of the law as a mark of the promise made to Abraham and lay claim to being God's Israel, His true Jews, Abraham's true children.


No, if it conflicts with what has been handed down to me, I am not about to just throw it up because others don't like what I believe, and have worked hard to undermine those beliefs.

I won't even comment on that. Read what you said several times and think about it.


That depends on which bit you are highlighting. It is not Israel in the flesh as such, but Israel under the law as a means to righteousness.

Israel of the flesh is Israel under the law. The Israel of the flesh is not the Israel of God. True, Jews can become part of God's Israel through faith.


Paul is proof that those who are of Israel in the flesh can be saved, just as Gentiles can, through the righteousness of God which is by faith.

Right.


Tht is the point of the Jacob/Esau story, that despite the workings of men, God's sovereign choice came through.

Yes, those words do describe what Paul is saying. But the meaning you give those words does not.

Paul is describing why "all who are descended from Israel are not Israel" proves God's word has not failed. And what exactly was God's word? It was the promise to Abraham and his seed that he would be the father of many nations. Paul's point is that Israel is either according to the promise, or it is according to the flesh.

Now, God's word has not failed simply because He's the biggest guy on the block, but because God retained his right to have an Israel according to "promise" which was not actually according to physical descent, as we see:


Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

By making this statement, God says that Israel will come "through Isaac." This isn't describing when Isaac first believed, or if he ever did -- that's not the issue! What is the issue is that Israel through Ishmael (Abraham and Sarah's initial plan!) was not God's Israel. God's Israel doesn't follow the "natural order" claimed by the Jews.

The same is with Jacob. Jacob didn't become a covenant member through stew and an animal hide. He didn't first believe the day a blind father blessed him. "Through Jacob" the "promise" made to Abraham would be effected, just as "through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned." Again, the natural order is disturbed (much to the dismay of Paul's Jewish opposition) and the "promise" made to Abraham is fulfilled through a promise made to Rebecca:


23 The LORD said to her,

"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger."

Rebecca understood that through this promise concerning Jacob, the promise to Abraham would be passed, so, once again, Israel is "through" a "promise" and not the natural order. The "seed" will bring salvation to the "seeds," so that salvation can be according to God's plan.

So what about the Israel of God? Through Whom will that come if not according to the flesh?


It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.


Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring–not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

It is because Christ is heir to the promise that believers are co-heirs. He was the obedient Israelite to whom the promise was made. Believers receive the promise and are true Jews, true children of Abraham, true Israelites, according to the promise. Of course, this certainly disturbs the natural order!!


What is this supposed to mean to anyone, bar the few here who have access to the locked doors of academic libraries, to be able to find a ten year old text?

I rarely post references to outside materials, but when I do I do so for those who can and do care to look it up. I don't expect you to look at anything that you don't know you already agree with. Others will, however.


Yet I am supposed to take your word for it that our views are wrong?

That's odd. I made an argument and referenced something related that someone might want to read. But considering your usual appeal to authority, I can see why you would interpret my motives as an appeal to authority. I don't share your approach to "truth," so an appeal to authority has no affect on me.


Some bright spark has published an essay, and the Reformed world comes crashing down?

That's just histrionics, Solly.


Oden is an academic, but he also remembers that he is writing for and to the Church, which is what I miss from a lot of the stuff I read,

It certainly WAS written for the Church. That begs the question, however.

[geebob]

I have no problem with aspects of the corporate election case, but it generally seems to be employed to undermine the doctrine of individual election, and that makes it suspect.

there are both positive implications and negative implications in terms of election here. The positive implications are not typically important as the negative ones here for the free will debates. The point is, the scriptural portrayal of election for salvation is corporate and there is no reason to assume from that individual election (and if you were to assume that corporate implies the individual, I could give you plenty of counter-examples). So the emphasis on corporate election is not to disprove individualistic election so much as it is to show that the election passages are underdeterminative on the issue of individualistic election. To argue against individualistic election, I would use other types of scriptures such as ones that I free will theists hold as evidence of God's universal salvific offer and desire, and I might also give philosophical arguements against reprobation (such as the one in my Thomas Talbott thread) and there's also a few verses I like showing that it was really possible that some people might have been wiped out, and had that happened, the individuals that would come from them would never have been born.


What is this supposed to mean to anyone, bar the few here who have access to the locked doors of academic libraries, to be able to find a ten year old text?

ach! they do that on your side of the atlantic? I can walk into just about any university library over in the states. Also our public libraries have inter-library loan where I can order photo copies of just about any periodical article for just pennies and have it within a few weeks.


from sheepdog

true. kind of off topic, but true.

sheepdog, the arminians did come from the calvinists, but they did so, specifically arminius who was a calvinist, in favor of the older mainstream doctrine of free will. There's a thread here pointing out the strong free will theistic following prior to augustine.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5819

[Sheepdog]

09-12-2003 @ 02:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210382#post210382)
geebob:

sheepdog, the arminians did come from the calvinists, but they did so, specifically arminius who was a calvinist, in favor of the older mainstream doctrine of free will. There's a thread here pointing out the strong free will theistic following prior to augustine.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5819

dude. i dont dispute this at all. evidence suggests that rabbis had debated the free will/sovereignty issue even in Jesus' day. i suspect some will still be debating it in Heaven-- not that God won't make the answer clear, but some are just that stubborn.

also, while Arminianism emerged from Calvinism, the Catholic Church the Reformers emerged from emphasized human free will / responsibility. not that i think Catholicism is right as a whole, but a broken clock is right twice a day.

as someone who has read a little bit of Augustine, i am not quickly convinced his thoughts are that close the modern Calvinism. i could be wrong, but his case for free will / responsibility would probably make modern Calvies squirm.

[geebob]

as someone who has read a little bit of Augustine, i am not quickly convinced his thoughts are that close the modern Calvinism. i could be wrong, but his case for free will / responsibility would probably make modern Calvies squirm.

Well there's early Augustine and later Augustine. Early Augustine was a free will theist, and later Augstine was a theological determinist. Modern historical studies suggests that Augustine and Pelagius were not that far apart theologically when they began to debate, but they drove each other to the extremes that they are now associated with.

[Sheepdog]

ahh. i see.

hey, in the other thread, you should read up on the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for semipelagianism. it gave quite a bit of background on Augustine's dealings with the pelagians and semipelagians.