Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

God alone at work in Romans 9

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Could one of the mods fix the title here, please? And change "ini" to "in".

    Thanks,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      So now we agree that both individuals and groups are in view in Romans 9?
      No. It is what I have been saying from the start. The 'individuals' as you call them are used as allegories that represent people (or covenants). In other words, Paul is using 'individual' imagery to make a point about different peoples. It has nothing to do with individual people or individual salvation. This can be seen throughout the entire chapter. (plus the entire book of Romans).

      It is tempting to read individualism into the text since it is western way of thinking -- but Hebrew (and much of middle eastern culture) sees things as 'group' identity.


      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      No, Paul's point is that "God choosing" is the focus in the potter and clay analogy.
      I'll have to disagree with you on this one. This is the Calvinist interpretation -- and if you go to the text, it is clear that Paul is not talking about individual election to salvation - but rather God's prerogative to choose how He wishes. Of course, as always, context is important.

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      But we can't read "before the nations were born or had done anything good or bad".
      You absolutely can. And especially when you understand how Paul uses allegory to make a point. (read above) And double especially when Paul quotes two places referring to the Nations that ensued from the forefathers - not the individuals. There is simply no other way of reconciling the reference to 'Individual' (forefathers) and the quotes regarding the nations that follow.

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Right, not by works, but by him who calls. That's monergism.
      It's Christianity. It is consistent with both monergism and synergism.

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      But Jacob was speaking prophetically, surely you believe his blessing was divinely sanctioned, and saying "he will be blessed" recognizes that sanction.
      I wouldn't agree that is good hermeneutical practice. IOW, I don't believe it is good practice to assume individuals speaking in a historical narrative are divinely inspired in their words.


      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Well I believe both were wrong, salvation is by God's choice, and not by fate.
      That is erroneous to the point. The church's argument against fate is interchangeable with arguments against monergism. The point is monergism, when you go back in history, teaches the same underlying principles as gnostic teaching regarding fate. The only difference is naming fate as 'God'.

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Well, here now, are you implying that people can of their own free will choose what is right? Would they not then be righteous apart from Christ?
      No. Being able to make a good decision does not impart righteousness apart from Christ, let alone does it atone for sin. Surely you wouldn't claim that making a right choice can self impart righteousness, as your question seems to imply?




      And we are still left with the idea that the early church fought for, so I'd love for you to answer it:

      Is it righteous and just for a father to hold his child accountable (with punishment) for something they had no ability to do? (e.g. punishing a newborn for not cleaning his or her room)
      Last edited by phat8594; 03-25-2018, 09:32 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
        Originally posted by lee_merrill
        Paul's point is that "God choosing" is the focus in the potter and clay analogy.
        I'll have to disagree with you on this one. This is the Calvinist interpretation -- and if you go to the text, it is clear that Paul is not talking about individual election to salvation - but rather God's prerogative to choose how He wishes. Of course, as always, context is important.
        "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Rom. 9:18)

        This is how God chooses! He chooses whom to have mercy on, and whom to harden. And if the Lord has mercy on you, that is salvation, and if the Lord hardens you, that is reprobation. And lest we think this is based on foreknowledge of faith, Paul continues:

        "One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”" (Rom. 9:19)

        This question only makes sense if we think of God as choosing how to shape the clay, of choosing whom he will:

        "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Ro 9:20–21)

        You absolutely can. And especially when you understand how Paul uses allegory to make a point. (read above) And double especially when Paul quotes two places referring to the Nations that ensued from the forefathers - not the individuals. There is simply no other way of reconciling the reference to 'Individual' (forefathers) and the quotes regarding the nations that follow.
        Well, I would challenge you to find that in a commentary! But if it's nations that are in view in "done anything good or bad", then it's God's sovereign choice of nations apart from anything they do, a very Calvinist concept.

        I wouldn't agree that is good hermeneutical practice. IOW, I don't believe it is good practice to assume individuals speaking in a historical narrative are divinely inspired in their words.
        Well, part of hermeneutics is discerning which parts are to be accepted as true.

        "By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff." (Heb 11:21)

        Being able to make a good decision does not impart righteousness apart from Christ, let alone does it atone for sin. Surely you wouldn't claim that making a right choice can self impart righteousness, as your question seems to imply?
        Yes, making right choices is righteousness, and those apart from Christ cannot make right choices:

        "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." (Ro 2:13)

        "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Mt 7:16–20)

        Is it righteous and just for a father to hold his child accountable (with punishment) for something they had no ability to do? (e.g. punishing a newborn for not cleaning his or her room)
        Yes, it is righteous to punish a committed sin, even if the person did not have the ability to do otherwise. Note that the ox that gored was stoned, and its flesh must not be eaten (Ex. 21:28). Note also Moses here:

        "If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt—when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin." (Le 5:2–6)

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Rom. 9:18)

          This is how God chooses! He chooses whom to have mercy on, and whom to harden. And if the Lord has mercy on you, that is salvation, and if the Lord hardens you, that is reprobation.
          This assertion is simply another insertion of a predetermined theology (calvinism) into the text. Absolutely nowhere in these verses does it say 'How'. Rather, this interpretation is inserting a predetermined theology (& therefore interpretation) into the text and then stating the text is saying something it actually never states.

          Please....I mean PLEASE explain to me how "God has mercy on who He wants to have mercy' answers the 'how' of God's choosing. And to be honest, I don't believe you will be able to...cause it simply is not there -- at least not in the text. Once you answer the 'how' from that verse, you have just inserted theology into the text -- rather than taking your theology form it.


          What I believe to be clear without a doubt, is that this verse is simply saying that it is God's prerogative to have mercy on whomever He wills. In other words, God lavishes His mercy on us, not because of how great we are, or the great works we have done, or even cause we have asked - but rather because He is merciful. And remember - this doesn't answer the 'how' - just that it is God's prerogative. And this also doesn't mean that God doesn't respond when we ask - in fact that verse is from when Moses asks God and God obliges - just that it is His mercy & not our works.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          And lest we think this is based on foreknowledge of faith, Paul continues:

          "One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”" (Rom. 9:19)
          Taking theology from the 'interlocutor' that Paul uses is bad form to say the least - and would definitely lead to some bad theology. So I don't think we should start here (remember, this is from the POV of someone challenging the truth of what Paul is saying). If we were to base our theology on the 'interlocutor' we would need to also affirm:
          • We should sin that grace may abound
          • We should sin because we are under grace and not the law
          • The Law is sinful
          • etc.



          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          This question only makes sense if we think of God as choosing how to shape the clay, of choosing whom he will:

          "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Ro 9:20–21)
          Are you taking your interpretation of the Potter & the Clay from calvinism or from the Bible? Because, in the Bible (OT specifically) the metaphor of Potter & the Clay does NOT imply lack of free will on the part of the clay. Rather the metaphor (remember, metaphors typically do not hold true perfectly in every way -- just in the way they are intended), is intended to show God's pre-eminence and prerogative to do as He chooses. (again - this does not imply the How)

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Well, I would challenge you to find that in a commentary! But if it's nations that are in view in "done anything good or bad", then it's God's sovereign choice of nations apart from anything they do, a very Calvinist concept.
          Should we look to a commentary - or the Bible? Because the references in Romans 9 are regarding Nations / Peoples - NOT individuals. There is simply no escaping that fact - no matter what a theology says this text should say.

          Furthermore, Paul uses similar language (children of promise vs flesh) and the same allegory dealing with a similar issue (the works of the Law) in Galations:
          21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

          24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.


          Note what he says there: "These things are being taken figuratively" or another translation "Now this may be interpreted allegorically"

          And the idea of God bestowing His promises on those regardless of if they have done good or bad is a very CHRISTIAN idea. In fact, that's what the book of Romans deals with. FAITH not works.


          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Yes, making right choices is righteousness, and those apart from Christ cannot make right choices:

          "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." (Ro 2:13)

          "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Mt 7:16–20)
          Just to be clear -- again -- you believe that making right decisions can impart righteousness apart from Christ -- and even atone for sin?


          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Yes, it is righteous to punish a committed sin, even if the person did not have the ability to do otherwise. Note that the ox that gored was stoned, and its flesh must not be eaten (Ex. 21:28). Note also Moses here:

          "If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt—when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin." (Le 5:2–6)
          Those verses don't support that idea at all. Rather it is about repenting & confessing ONCE they become aware.


          And -- again -- just to be clear, you believe it is righteous to punish someone for something that they had no ability to do. Including a father punishing a new born for not cleaning a room?


          And I am truly asking for clarity -- because I prefer clarity over agreement.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
            Please....I mean PLEASE explain to me how "God has mercy on who He wants to have mercy' answers the 'how' of God's choosing.
            I meant by "how God chooses" that God chooses by his sovereign will, not according to foreseen faith, or anything else in the person.

            What I believe to be clear without a doubt, is that this verse is simply saying that it is God's prerogative to have mercy on whomever He wills. In other words, God lavishes His mercy on us, not because of how great we are, or the great works we have done, or even cause we have asked - but rather because He is merciful. And remember - this doesn't answer the 'how' - just that it is God's prerogative. And this also doesn't mean that God doesn't respond when we ask - in fact that verse is from when Moses asks God and God obliges - just that it is His mercy & not our works.
            Agreed!

            Originally posted by lee_merrill
            And lest we think this is based on foreknowledge of faith, Paul continues:

            "One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”" (Rom. 9:19)
            Taking theology from the 'interlocutor' that Paul uses is bad form to say the least - and would definitely lead to some bad theology. So I don't think we should start here (remember, this is from the POV of someone challenging the truth of what Paul is saying).
            Agreed again, I only include Paul's questioner to show that we have understood Paul correctly, that God's choice is the ultimate cause of our salvation.

            Are you taking your interpretation of the Potter & the Clay from calvinism or from the Bible? Because, in the Bible (OT specifically) the metaphor of Potter & the Clay does NOT imply lack of free will on the part of the clay. Rather the metaphor (remember, metaphors typically do not hold true perfectly in every way -- just in the way they are intended), is intended to show God's pre-eminence and prerogative to do as He chooses.
            Surely the metaphor of the potter and clay is intended to show that behind every choice, God is choosing:

            "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" (Ro 9:21)

            Note the other metaphors for God's election are all passive on the part of the human: new birth, new creation, resurrection.

            Should we look to a commentary - or the Bible? Because the references in Romans 9 are regarding Nations / Peoples - NOT individuals. There is simply no escaping that fact - no matter what a theology says this text should say.
            Yet Jacob was chosen by God, and Esau was not.

            Note what he says there: "These things are being taken figuratively" or another translation "Now this may be interpreted allegorically"
            Yes, but not only allegorically, Isaac was chosen and free, and Ishmael was not.

            And the idea of God bestowing His promises on those regardless of if they have done good or bad is a very CHRISTIAN idea. In fact, that's what the book of Romans deals with. FAITH not works.
            And also "God's choice", not works. There is more than one theme in the book of Romans.

            Just to be clear -- again -- you believe that making right decisions can impart righteousness apart from Christ -- and even atone for sin?
            Right decisions cannot atone for sin, but if any person can freely choose to do what is right, then righteousness could have come through the law, and Christ died in vain (Gal. 2:21).

            Those verses don't support that idea at all. Rather it is about repenting & confessing ONCE they become aware.
            Well, not the ox!

            And -- again -- just to be clear, you believe it is righteous to punish someone for something that they had no ability to do.
            Yes, where there is responsibility.

            Including a father punishing a new born for not cleaning a room?
            But there is no responsibility here, what we are responsible for is right conduct.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment

            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
            Working...
            X