Our Featured Member Article: Romans 9 - Introduction by 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 -

Romans 11:11-12 (NRSV)

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 -

Scripture Verse:

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 -

Romans 9

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