The Philocalia of Origen was a collection of passages from Origen's works (~230 AD) compiled by Gregory Nazianzus and Basil the Great (4th century AD). For those who are not familiar with these names, those three are among the top theological names of their era, Origen especially stands out as one of the most influential theologians in history.

I am interested here in looking at the section in the Philocalia on Free Will. In the 2nd century AD the gnostic heretics had (among other things) denied human free will and insisted that people were born with certain natures (“spiritual” or “fleshly”) which meant that they were inevitably predestined to either salvation or damnation. It is this heresy that Origen has in mind in these passages, but that heresy is so close to Calvinistic predestination that Origen's statements are equally relevant in the context of this forum.

I leave you with an abridged version of Origen's comments on free will. The above linked translation was done in 1911 so I'll clean up the wording a lhere to make it more readable.

======

Origen on Free Will from the Philocalia,
compiled by Basil and Gregory.


The doctrine of a righteous judgment of God forms part of the preaching of the Church, and that doctrine stimulates whoever hear and believes it to live good lives and by all means to avoid sin (assuming, of course, it is the case that praiseworthy or blameworthy conduct is within our power). So therefore let us briefly discuss a few points connected with Free Will, for the subject is of the utmost importance.

It is our business to lead a good life, and God asks it of us. Throughout the scriptures it is made clear that this does not depend on Him, and does not come from some different god, or, as some suppose, from fate, but is a matter for ourselves:
Micah says, "He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"[Mic 6:8]
And Moses, "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,"[Deut 30:19]
And Isaiah, "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."[Isa 1:19-20]
And in the Psalms, "O that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways! I would soon subdue their enemies, and turn my hand against their foes."[Psa 81:14-15]
All of this tells us that it was in the power of the people to hearken and walk in the ways of God.

The Saviour himself says, "39But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil."[Mat 5:39]
and, "that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment"[Mat 5:22]
and, "every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."[Mat 5:28]
Whenever anyone gives a commandment, they do so with the implicit assumption that it is in our power to do what is commanded; and with good reason, if we are to be in danger of the judgment for transgressing them!
Christ also says, "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock" and so on. "And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand" and so on. [Mat 7:24-27]
And, speaking to those on the right hand, "`Come, O blessed of my Father" and so forth; "for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink"
This shows very clearly that because they deserve to be praised He gives them the promises. And, on the contrary, He says to the others, because in comparison with them they deserved to be blamed, "`Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire"[Mat 25:31-46]

And let us see what Paul also says to us with the assumption that we have Free Will and are ourselves responsible for being lost or saved.
"Or do you presume," he says, "upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek"[Rom 2:4-9]
There are, indeed, countless passages in the Scriptures which very clearly support the doctrine of Free Will.

However there are certain passages in the Old Testament and in the New that suggest the opposite conclusion: that it is not in our power to keep the commandments and be saved, or to transgress them and perish. Let us in turn take some of these, and look at the explanations of them. A reader studying our examples should hopefully gain the skill to deal for himself with any remaining passages he meets which seem to destroy Free Will, and to be able to correctly understand them.


Pharaoh's Hardened Heart; Vessels of Honour and Dishonour

Some heterodox thinkers use these passages (themselves almost destroying Free Will) for the sake of introducing perishing natures incapable of being saved, and different natures which are being saved, because they cannot possibly be lost. [Origen is here thinking of the Gnostics, but if you replaced the Gnostic “earthly/spiritual nature” with the Calvinist “unregenerate/regenerate nature” Origen's argument is no different] They claim that Pharaoh being of a perishing nature was therefore hardened by God. Come, let us see if that is what these passages really mean.

We will ask them if Pharaoh was of an earthy nature; and if they answer "Yes," we will tell them that the man with an earthy nature is altogether disobedient to God. And if he is thus disobedient, what need is there for hardening his heart, and this not once but many times? This shall be our first argument against them in order to overthrow their assumption that Pharaoh was of a perishing nature, and we shall give the same answer respecting the Apostle's statement [in Romans 9]. Does He harden the perishing, perhaps, because He believes that they will be partially obedient unless they are hardened?

Let us investigate what Scripture means by saying that God by His operation hardens the heart, and what is His object in doing so. Let us remember that everything God does must be consistent with His being really just and good. If my opponents object to this, then for the present I will waive the assumption that God is good and work only with the premise that God is just. I invite them to show how it is that the just God can be manifesting His justice when he hardens the heart of a man who is perishing through being hardened, and how the just God can be the cause of a man's disobedience and destruction since men are punished by Him for their hardness because they do not obey Him. How is it that God can justly blame Pharaoh for his actions when God Himself was the cause of the disobedience? Remember God said to Pharaoh "You will not let my people go? I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt" and much else [Ex 7-12].

It is clear that we ought to understand these scriptures consistently with the revealed justice of God. There is an example given by Paul in Hebrews that gives us some insight. We learn from it that if God does one and the same merciful thing to two different men it may have different effects on the two men, hardening one and helping the other. These effects are purely the result of the men's response to God and are not different by God's own intention. "For land," Paul says in Hebrews, "which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned."[Heb 6:7-8] So then, in respect of the rain there is one operation. But while there is one operation in respect of the rain, the land which is tilled bears fruit, and the land which is neglected and barren bears thorns. It might sound a bit harsh to say of the sender of the rain that he made grow both the fruits and the thorns equally, but however harsh it might sound it would nevertheless be true. For if there had been no rain, there would have been neither fruits nor thorns; but because there were seasonable and moderate rains, both fruits and thorns grew. It is the land which has drunk the rain that comes frequently upon it and bears thorns and thistles that is rejected and cursed. So then, the blessing of the rain came also upon the inferior land; but it was the inherent badness of the land, left uncared for and uncultivated, which caused thorns and thistles to grow. So God's marvellous doings are represented by the rain; but men's different purposes are represented by the cultivation or neglect of the land; the quality of the land itself is the same in both cases.

Suppose the sun were to speak and say, "I melt and dry up." Melting and drying up are the contraries of one another, yet wax is melted and clay dried up by one and the same heat. In a like way to these examples the one operation of God by means of Moses resulted in the hardening of Pharaoh on account of his evil disposition, and the obedience of the mixed multitudes of the Egyptians who went out with the Hebrews on account of their dispositions. And the brief statement that the heart of Pharaoh was somewhat softened, inasmuch as he said, "Only you must not go very far away: you may go three days' journey, but leave your wives" and whatever else he said [Ex 7-12], slightly yielding to the marvellous deeds of Moses, shows that the great signs and wonders being done produced some effect upon him, but not the full effect. Now there would not have been even this degree of softening if, as is thought by the many, the meaning of "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" is that the hardening was effected by God Himself. And it is not absurd to tone down the harshness of such expressions as we do in common life. It often happens that kind masters say to their servants, who are being ruined by their kindness and forbearance, "I have spoiled you"; "I am to blame for such and such offences." We ought to attend to the nature and force of what is said, and not quibble because we do not plainly catch the meaning of the expression.

A reader may well say, "If, as the potter from the same lump makes some vessels unto honour and some unto dishonour, so also God makes some unto salvation and some to perdition, it follows that we have nothing to do with our salvation or perdition: nor are we free agents." Let me ask a reader who makes this use of the words, if he can imagine the Apostle contradicting himself. I do not think anyone will dare say this. Well then, if the Apostle does not contradict himself, how is the reader going to explain it when the Apostle finds fault when he blames the Corinthian fornicator, or those who fell into sin and did not repent of the lasciviousness and incontinence which they committed? For if you deny free will and say that God himself decides these things, how can anyone praise or blame the humans for God's choices? And how is it that he blesses for their well-doing those whom he praises, as, for instance, the house of Onesiphorus, saying, "The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day." Surely it is not consistent for the same Apostle to both give praise and blame and yet at the same time maintain that nothing depends on ourselves and that the Creator of the world is responsible for bringing one vessel being unto honour, and another unto dishonour? How can it be sound doctrine that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body."[2 Cor 5:10] if they who have done evil have so conducted themselves because they were created vessels of dishonour, and they who have lived virtuous lives have done that which is right, because originally they were fashioned that way as vessels of honour?

But even worse, their interpretation directly contradicts the words of Paul elsewhere. For they interpret [Romans 9] as meaning it is purely up to the Creator whether one vessel is of honour and another of dishonour, yet we read "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work."[2 Tim 2:20-21] If it is indeed true that a man can purges himself and become a vessel of honour, and another man can carelessly leave himself unpurged and become a vessel of dishonour, then the Creator cannot be held responsible. For the Creator merely makes vessels, neither initially of honour or dishonour. Some vessels He makes become vessels of honour by purging themselves, and some become vessels of dishonour who carelessly leave themselves unpurged, hence it is said the the Creator makes both vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour. So thus we see that the creator makes the vessels and their use for honour or dishonour is up to us men. There is one and the same lump of clay subject to the potter, out of which vessels are made to honour and dishonour: so, though there is one common soul nature that God makes, subsequent events have made some men come to be honourable and others dishonourable.

Since we know Paul's two statements on the matter [in Rom 9 and 2 Tim 2] cannot be contradictory, we must hold them both together and from the two draw one sound conclusion. The power we have does not compel us to advance in goodness apart from the knowledge of God, nor does the knowledge of God compel us to advance unless we also contribute to the good result; for neither does all our power apart from the knowledge of God make a man to be unto honour or unto dishonour; nor does God's power alone fashion a man unto honour or dishonour unless He have our choice, inclining to the better or the worse, as a sort of raw material out of which to make the difference.


Ezekiel and the Stony Hearts

"I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them"[Ezek 11:19-20] If it is true that until God takes away the stony hearts and we cannot do anything to remove them then it is clear that the putting away of our wickedness does not depend upon ourselves. If, indeed, we contribute nothing towards the creation within us of the heart of flesh and rather it is fully the work of God it would follow that a virtuous life will not be our work but altogether the work of Divine grace. That is what someone would say who seeks to destroy Free Will using the surface meaning of the words above as a justification. In reply we shall say that we ought to understand these passages differently, as follows.

Consider an ignorant and uneducated boy who has become conscious of his defects, perhaps through the criticism of another or simply by his own realisation. He therefore seeks out a man whom he thinks capable of leading him into education and virtue. When the boy places himself in the hands of this teacher, his instructor promises to take away the lack of education and to give him knowledge. But even once in the hands of the teacher the education does not depend on the teacher alone. The teacher only benefits the pupil if the pupil listens carefully in a desire to improve and learn. In the same way the Divine Word promises to take away the wickedness, which it calls the stony heart, of those who come to it, not if they are unwilling, but if they submit themselves to the Physician of the sick. In the Gospels, the sick are found coming to the Saviour and begging to be healed and restored to health. We may say that if the blind received their sight, it was the doing of the sufferers inasmuch as they believed they could be restored and begged the blessing, and that it was the Saviour's doing inasmuch as He did restore their sight. In this way the message of God to Ezekiel promises to implant knowledge in those who come to it, by taking away the stony and hard heart, that is to say, their wickedness, so that a man may walk in the Divine commandments and keep the Divine ordinances.


It depends only on God who has mercy?

Now let us look at the words, "it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy."[Rom 9:16] Some people think this shows that salvation does not depend upon ourselves, but upon the way men are constituted by Him who makes them what they are, or on the choice of Him who has mercy when He pleases!

In the Book of Psalms it says "Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain."[Psa 127:2] He does not mean to dissuade us from building, nor is he teaching us not to watch so as to guard the city of our soul, but he is showing that what is built apart from God, and is not blessed with His guardianship, is built in vain and kept to no purpose, because God might reasonably have been called the Lord of the building, and the Master of the Universe, the Ruler of the guard of the city. Suppose, therefore, we were to say that such a building is not the work of the builder, but God's work; and that if the city has suffered nothing from its enemies, success is not to be attributed to the watchman, but to God over all, we should not err: for it is understood that man plays his part, though the manliness and virtue is thankfully ascribed to God Who brought it to perfection. Similarly, inasmuch as human willing is not sufficient for the attainment of the end in view, nor the running, as if we were athletes, sufficient for grasping the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, for these results are secured with God's assistance, it is well said that "it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy."[Rom 9:16]

The same might be said of husbandry, as it is written, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth."[1 Cor 3:6-7] and if there are abundant fruits, we could not with piety say that this is the work of the husbandman, or the work of him that waters, but the work of God; so also our perfecting is not brought about if we do nothing at all, though it is not completed by us, but God effects the greater part of it. And that what we say may carry clear conviction, we will take an illustration from navigation. If we regard the winds that blow, the settled state of the weather, and the brightness of the stars, all contributing to the safety of those on board, how much could we credit seamanship with for bringing the vessel into harbour? The shipmasters themselves from motives of piety do not often venture to affirm that they have saved the ship, but ascribe everything to God; not as though they had done nothing, but because Providence has contributed to the result immensely more than their skill. And certainly in the saving of our souls what God gives is immensely more than what comes from our own ability; and this, I think, accounts for the words, "it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy." For if we understand the words as our opponents do then the commandments are superfluous, and Paul to no purpose blames some for having fallen into sin, and congratulates others on their uprightness, and lays down laws for the churches. On their interpretation it is useless for us to devotedly will the better life, useless to earnestly resolve to run. But not in vain does Paul give his advice, blaming some, congratulating others; and not in vain do we devotedly will the better life and press on to things which excel.

Originally posted by Tercel

The shipmasters themselves from motives of piety do not often venture to affirm that they have saved the ship, but ascribe everything to God; not as though they had done nothing, but because Providence has contributed to the result immensely more than their skill. And certainly in the saving of our souls what God gives is immensely more than what comes from our own ability; and this, I think, accounts for the words, "it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy."

The above statement implies that our "free will" has nothing to do with God's predestination. And thus the quoted verse very much fit unto it. However, when one's condemnation is in question, it certainly would not fit.

For if we understand the words as our opponents do then the commandments are superfluous, and Paul to no purpose blames some for having fallen into sin, and congratulates others on their uprightness, and lays down laws for the churches.

And here, the statement does not conform with the verse. Origen's argument is flat dead.

On their interpretation it is useless for us to devotedly will the better life, useless to earnestly resolve to run. But not in vain does Paul give his advice, blaming some, congratulating others; and not in vain do we devotedly will the better life and press on to things which excel.

Why would it be useless when the gnostics believed that it is God who put free will in themselves to live as they were ordained to? And the fact that the lost would "will differently" is mere evidence that they were ordained to destruction. Origen implies that gnostics can act out of their own, which is not representative of the gnostics he is against of. See your conclusion about the gnostic yourself.

Origen blundered on his argument, the way Arminians usually does.


I believe the issue of free will in regards to God's election is best expressly manifested on the story of Esau and Jacob. In the story, free will is totally disregarded in showing God's salvation of predestination/election. A

Originally posted by 7thangel

And here, the statement does not conform with the verse.

Origen's point is that the verse is exaggeration. He thus gives examples of how we exaggerate things in a similar way in real life. He also points to the other passages in the bible that exhort us to good works, by which we know that this passage must be exaggeration.

Origen blundered on his argument, the way Arminians usually does.

The logic of his argument is perfectly accurate. You miight think that there are other, more compelling, arguments to be made for a different conclusion, and thus you might reasonably disagree with his conclusions on those grounds. But it seems entirely unreasonable to claim his argument itself is seriously flawed.

I believe the issue of free will in regards to God's election is best expressly manifested on the story of Esau and Jacob. In the story, free will is totally disregarded in showing God's salvation of predestination/election.

But that's exactly what makes me laugh about calvinism... Esau and Jacob ISN'T a story about predestination to salvation!

When calvinists speak of predestination to salvation they are talking about the idea of some people going to heaven and others going to hell in the afterlife. But what happened with Jacob and Esau had nothing whatsoever to do with the afterlife. God needed to make a choice about his chosen nation on earth in this life, and he chose the descendents of Jacob rather than Esau. That choice had nothing to do with salvation/damnation - it didn't make Israelites go to heaven in the afterlife and it didn't make Edomites go to hell, it was entirely to do with how God related with different nations on earth in this life. He didn't elect the Israelites to salvation, he elected them to be a nation he worked through on earth. Predestination to salvation is a claim about what God makes happen to people after death and election of Israel was something that applied during their lives, the two are completely different! For a long time after Jacob Israelites didn't even believe in an afterlife, but they did believe that God had chosen their nation as something special.

The point of the Jacob vs Esau election whether it be mentioned in Genesis, Malachi, or Romans 9 is always the same: That God elected Israel as his chosen nation - NOTHING to do with predestination to salvation. Whether THAT election is by foreknowledge or by sovereign grace is something we can reasonably discuss... but the claim that the election of Jacob vs Esau is talking about individual predestination to salvation after death is a totally absurd idea that bears no relation to the text. Until calvinists are actually prepared to take what the bible says seriously there is not even the possibility of reasonable discussion.

Originally posted by Tercel

Origen's point is that the verse is exaggeration. He thus gives examples of how we exaggerate things in a similar way in real life. He also points to the other passages in the bible that exhort us to good works, by which we know that this passage must be exaggeration.

No, it is not an exagerration. What Paul said in the verse is a plain revelation that is contradictory to those under the law. You are under the law, that is why you say it is an exaggeration. Look, for it is much the same when we deal with the Torah and of Paul saying, "cursed is anyone under the law..."

The logic of his argument is perfectly accurate.

How can it be accurate, when, in the first place, Origen used it against the gnostics, which you even claimed, does not believe in human free will? Perhaps you are actually adressing Origen's argument to the Calvinists. Then I would say yes it is accurate against Calvinism.

But that's exactly what makes me laugh about calvinism... Esau and Jacob ISN'T a story about predestination to salvation!

Unless you don't understand what is meant by being blessed as "a servant of your brother" meant, then you will surely say that it is not about salvation. The allegory of being a servant is "unsaved." Not unless you say "servant of God." Esau was really cursed.

When calvinists speak of predestination to salvation they are talking about the idea of some people going to heaven and others going to hell in the afterlife. But what happened with Jacob and Esau had nothing whatsoever to do with the afterlife. God needed to make a choice about his chosen nation on earth in this life, and he chose the descendents of Jacob rather than Esau. That choice had nothing to do with salvation/damnation - it didn't make Israelites go to heaven in the afterlife and it didn't make Edomites go to hell, it was entirely to do with how God related with different nations on earth in this life. He didn't elect the Israelites to salvation, he elected them to be a nation he worked through on earth. Predestination to salvation is a claim about what God makes happen to people after death and election of Israel was something that applied during their lives, the two are completely different! For a long time after Jacob Israelites didn't even believe in an afterlife, but they did believe that God had chosen their nation as something special.

The point of the Jacob vs Esau election whether it be mentioned in Genesis, Malachi, or Romans 9 is always the same: That God elected Israel as his chosen nation - NOTHING to do with predestination to salvation. Whether THAT election is by foreknowledge or by sovereign grace is something we can reasonably discuss... but the claim that the election of Jacob vs Esau is talking about individual predestination to salvation after death is a totally absurd idea that bears no relation to the text. Until calvinists are actually prepared to take what the bible says seriously there is not even the possibility of reasonable discussion.

Indeed, the nation of Israel/Jacob is the only one's that will be saved. The question is who represent the true Israel/Jacob nation? The allegory of Ishmael and Isaac is very much the same to Jacob and Esau, although Paul made emphasis of "servanthood" in dealing with Ishmael. Those who represent the nation of Edom and Ishmaelites are those under the law, not their literal tribes. Same also of Israel, not because they are of Israel, do they belong to the tribe of Israel that will be saved.

Originally posted by Tercel

But that's exactly what makes me laugh about calvinism... Esau and Jacob ISN'T a story about predestination to salvation!

When calvinists speak of predestination to salvation they are talking about the idea of some people going to heaven and others going to hell in the afterlife. But what happened with Jacob and Esau had nothing whatsoever to do with the afterlife. God needed to make a choice about his chosen nation on earth in this life, and he chose the descendents of Jacob rather than Esau. That choice had nothing to do with salvation/damnation - it didn't make Israelites go to heaven in the afterlife and it didn't make Edomites go to hell, it was entirely to do with how God related with different nations on earth in this life. He didn't elect the Israelites to salvation, he elected them to be a nation he worked through on earth. Predestination to salvation is a claim about what God makes happen to people after death and election of Israel was something that applied during their lives, the two are completely different! For a long time after Jacob Israelites didn't even believe in an afterlife, but they did believe that God had chosen their nation as something special.

The point of the Jacob vs Esau election whether it be mentioned in Genesis, Malachi, or Romans 9 is always the same: That God elected Israel as his chosen nation - NOTHING to do with predestination to salvation. Whether THAT election is by foreknowledge or by sovereign grace is something we can reasonably discuss... but the claim that the election of Jacob vs Esau is talking about individual predestination to salvation after death is a totally absurd idea that bears no relation to the text. Until calvinists are actually prepared to take what the bible says seriously there is not even the possibility of reasonable discussion.

My aren't we confident! Not so fast there Tercel, I've got something to say if I might. As we will see from Paul's argument, the nationalistic interpretation you mention, does not deal adequately with the context of Romans 9, rather it argues against the context of Romans 9.

If we understand the connection between verses 1-5 of chapter 9 and the way it relates to the context of the whole chapter, it will be very clear, I think, that throughout this chapter Paul is teaching individual, unconditional election to eternal destinies by God, not corporate election to historical roles.
Yes the Jews are God's chosen people, having been blessed greatly and given many promises by God. Yet, many of the Jews are INDIVIDUALLY facing eternal condemnation, verses 1-3.

In Romans 9, Paul is so upset that most of his people are accursed that he says he would like to trade places, verse 3. So God has given great promises and privileges to the Jews that seem to guarantee their salvation, yet only some of them are being saved. Therefore, it seems as if God's promises to Israel have failed.

This seems very clear to me. In the beginning of verse 6, Paul acknowledges that the problem of verses 1-5 makes it appear as if God's word has failed: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed."
In verses 6-13, Paul begins explaining and supporting the solution to this problem. He says "it is not as though the word of God has failed" and themn he tries to explain why. The whole of the 9th of romans appears to be Paul seeking to answer difficulties arising from verses 1-5.

So I think that the whole chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals. Since the problem raised by verses 1-5 concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution to this problem which Paul defends in the rest of Romans 9, must also deal with the eternal destinies of individuals.

The "corporate election to historical roles" view cannot successfully explain Paul's argument: How is the problem of eternally condemned, individual Israelites in 1-5 resolved if 6-24 only refer tohistorical roles and not individual salvation?

The first thing Paul wants us to know is that God's word remains firm and successful. God's Word has not failed. IOW, it may look as if God has failed, but He really hasn't...there is another solution to the problem. Paul then begins to give the true solution to the problem, that is, he begins telling us why God's word hasn't failed. "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel..."

You see, God hasn't failed because it was never His promise to save every individual Jew. Instead, God's promise was only to save the elect among the physical Jew. "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" he says. God's saving promises are to the elect whom He has chosen within Israel, the "true Israel", and not every physical member of the nation. Since all of the elect do get saved, God's word has not failed.

Paul then supports his point in verses 7-13. He points to God's choice of Isaac over Ishmael. And God's election of Jacob over Esau. In order to demonstrate that God not only established the physical nation of Israel by His electing choice, but also elects within that physical nation the individuals who are part of the "true" Israel.

The elect, who are members of the true Israel, are "the children of promise" as we find in vers 8. The fact that Isaac and Jacob are used here to represent all saved people...in order to illustrate that God chooses who is saved. IOW that just as God chose Isaac and Jacob, so also He chooses everyone who is saved.

This is brought out in verse 7 "...neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but through Isaac your descendants will be named." Paul is saying that the case of Isaac is an illustration of the fact that physical descent isn't enough to make one a child of God.

Paul speaks of the "children of God" in verse 8:
Rom 9:8 That is, They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Paul uses this same expression back in Romans 8:16, 17...the children of God, and he is referring to Salvation. Also in Galatians (4:21-31) Paul also applies an OT story to the topic of individual salvation, even though in their OT context the passages do not specifically deal with salvation. So Romans 9 is not the only instance where Paul uses OT texts salvifically, even if in their OT context they do not directly deal with salvation. This is one of the main arguments used against the Calvinistic view.

Originally posted by GoBahnsen

My aren't we confident! Not so fast there Tercel, I've got something to say if I might. As we will see from Paul's argument, the nationalistic interpretation you mention, does not deal adequately with the context of Romans 9, rather it argues against the context of Romans 9.

The preamble to Romans 9 is about Israel and Israel of the flesh, so yes, it is VERY nationalistic. Paul uses both Ishmael and Esau to show that it is only God's Choice in election as to WHOM is considered Israel.

Further Paul states in Chapter 9:

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

So it is unto ISRAEL that all of this concerns, and this theme carries all the way to the FINAL SOLUTION (the exact opposite of Hitler's) that ALL OF ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED in Romans 11:25-31

John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Paul sets this stage early in Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first

and again in Romans 2:9
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first,

and in vs. 10
Romans 2:9
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first,

If we understand the connection between verses 1-5 of chapter 9 and the way it relates to the context of the whole chapter, it will be very clear, I think, that throughout this chapter Paul is teaching individual, unconditional election to eternal destinies by God, not corporate election to historical roles.

He certainly is, but of course not in the way that Calvinism presents.

There is A PORTION OF ISRAEL that is NOT ISRAEL. That is "the children of the flesh."

Yet we find the FINAL SOLUTION includes the SALVATION of ALL OF ISRAEL, even the enemies of the Gospel who were "made" (past tense) enemies...

So who are the "enemies" in the SAME LUMP of EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERSON???

You see GB, you want to ascribe THE VESSEL OF HONOR on an individual basis, but you do not want to ascribe THE VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION to the SAME LUMP on an individual basis.

You cut THE SAME LUMP on not only a NATIONALISTIC basis, but a WORLDWIDE basis. You attribute a tiny little portion that you call a "remnant" to be YOU AND THE FEW, and you claim the GREAT MAJORITY OF THE SAME LUMP is all of eternally damned mankind. So you to do the DEAL on a much broader NATIONALISTIC scale. An all inclusive NATIONALISTIC scale.

On this broader nationalistic basis you have no valid complaint with Tercel's Israel Nationalistic basis. Though I would disagree with you both. (go figure) My own understanding is on this thread under a post titled "STUMPED LUMPS" and it may provide a readily acceptable alternative to BOTH of your positions.

Yes the Jews are God's chosen people, having been blessed greatly and given many promises by God. Yet, many of the Jews are INDIVIDUALLY facing eternal condemnation, verses 1-3.

Paul totally ELIMINATES THIS as an option in Chapter 11 vs. 25-32 wherein even the ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL are saved BECAUSE they are loved for the sake of the Patriarchs. So even though only a remnant will BELIEVE AND CONFESS while upon the earth, ALL OF ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED.

I am also certain that it takes many years of study to eliminate Romans 11:25-31 down to a petty few.

In Romans 9, Paul is so upset that most of his people are accursed that he says he would like to trade places, verse 3. So God has given great promises and privileges to the Jews that seem to guarantee their salvation, yet only some of them are being saved. Therefore, it seems as if God's promises to Israel have failed.

Under you theology God nearly utterly fails Israel. The "accursing" Paul wishes for himself in place of his brethren is nowhere stated to be "eternal" btw.

This seems very clear to me. In the beginning of verse 6, Paul acknowledges that the problem of verses 1-5 makes it appear as if God's word has failed: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed."
In verses 6-13, Paul begins explaining and supporting the solution to this problem. He says "it is not as though the word of God has failed" and themn he tries to explain why. The whole of the 9th of romans appears to be Paul seeking to answer difficulties arising from verses 1-5.

Even by the end of Romans 9 your own understanding is pretty well repudiated by Pau because this will come to pass:

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Paul summarizes when this will transpire in Romans 11.

So I think that the whole chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals.

But even you apply the SAME LUMP on a NATIONALISTIC basis, not an individual basis. You say the ENTIRE LUMP of vessels of destructions is "individually" the MASS LUMP of unbelievers, and the vessels of honor, vice versa. Paul says that BOTH of these positions are in THE SAME LUMP.

You make the SAME LUMP only inclusive of ONE or THE OTHER, therefore you to make your eternal judgment on a worldwide, age wide all inclusive nationalistic scale. This is INADVISABLE for the SAME LUMP.

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

On any INDIVIDUAL SCALE you should rightfully attribute BOTH of the positions and seeing as how you STILL HAVE SIN in your FLESH this would also ONLY BE RIGHT. But of course you prefer MASS ETERNAL DAMNATION to others and only RIGHTEOUS HOLINESS for yourself so I expect your personal bias plays it's role well here. I call that part of the lump eternally damned.

Since the problem raised by verses 1-5 concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution to this problem which Paul defends in the rest of Romans 9, must also deal with the eternal destinies of individuals.

But you do not attribute both positions to THE SAME LUMP so your statement that you apply this on an "individual basis" is WRONG. You do not make this application to THE SAME LUMP. You make ALL OF HUMANITY the same lump and THEN you make your division as to one or the other.

The "corporate election to historical roles" view cannot successfully explain Paul's argument: How is the problem of eternally condemned, individual Israelites in 1-5 resolved if 6-24 only refer tohistorical roles and not individual salvation?

There are no eternally condemned Israelites in verses 1-5 or EVER. God Himself has a COVENANT to fulfill with THEM that was RATIFIED by The Son and His Blood.

The first thing Paul wants us to know is that God's word remains firm and successful. God's Word has not failed.

God's Word in behalf of Israel utterly fails in the Calvinist view. God's Word, Work, and Will remain only good for the "remnant" on the earth, even in the face of Romans 11:25-31 that is TO THE CONTRARY.

IOW, it may look as if God has failed, but He really hasn't...there is another solution to the problem. Paul then begins to give the true solution to the problem, that is, he begins telling us why God's word hasn't failed. "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel..."

You see, God hasn't failed because it was never His promise to save every individual Jew.

Oh? If all of Israel are God's Own Children (Deut. 14:1 Psalm 82:6 and many many others) then YES, it is your version of God who nearly UTTERLY FAILS and not only that, but burns HIS OWN CHILDREN ALIVE IN FIRE FOREVER.

Now that IS a Divine Failure of gigantic proportions.

Instead, God's promise was only to save the elect among the physical Jew. "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" he says. God's saving promises are to the elect whom He has chosen within Israel, the "true Israel", and not every physical member of the nation. Since all of the elect do get saved, God's word has not failed.

And you mistake "children of the flesh" for Israel. Children of the flesh dwell in the flesh, but ARE NOT GOD'S CHILDREN. Now if ALL OF ISRAEL are God's Children who is LEFT to be "children of the flesh." You really should be asking that question.

Paul then supports his point in verses 7-13. He points to God's choice of Isaac over Ishmael. And God's election of Jacob over Esau. In order to demonstrate that God not only established the physical nation of Israel by His electing choice, but also elects within that physical nation the individuals who are part of the "true" Israel.

The elect, who are members of the true Israel, are "the children of promise" as we find in vers 8. The fact that Isaac and Jacob are used here to represent all saved people...in order to illustrate that God chooses who is saved. IOW that just as God chose Isaac and Jacob, so also He chooses everyone who is saved.

But you see you NATIONALISTICALLY lump all people as THE SAME LUMP then make your division into vessels. You do not want to make THE SAME LUMP the container of BOTH VESSELS as PAUL REQUIRES on an INDIVIDUAL SCALE, but a WORLDWIDE, AGEWIDE scale.

This is brought out in verse 7 "...neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but through Isaac your descendants will be named." Paul is saying that the case of Isaac is an illustration of the fact that physical descent isn't enough to make one a child of God.

Paul speaks of the "children of God" in verse 8:
Rom 9:8 That is, They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

But you see you have a scriptural hole in your position big enough to run most of the world through GB.

All of Israel have already been stated as being God's Children multiple times in the OT and ALL PEOPLE were taught by Paul as being GOD'S offspring in Acts 17:25-31

Now if you want to call GOD'S OWN CHILDREN AND OFFSPRING vessels of destruction you are very ill advised!

The only logical contender that remains for this position is the devil and his messengers who ALSO happen to RESIDE IN THE FLESH OF ALL PEOPLE, the SAME LUMP thereby containing BOTH vessels.

Paul uses this same expression back in Romans 8:16, 17...the children of God, and he is referring to Salvation. Also in Galatians (4:21-31) Paul also applies an OT story to the topic of individual salvation, even though in their OT context the passages do not specifically deal with salvation. So Romans 9 is not the only instance where Paul uses OT texts salvifically, even if in their OT context they do not directly deal with salvation. This is one of the main arguments used against the Calvinistic view.

Your vessel ain't as clean as it claims to be...

enjoy!

smaller

Originally posted by GoBahnsen

My aren't we confident!

Some things are blindingly obvious.

Nothing in verses 1-5 suggests at all that the eternal destiny of individuals is in view: Verses 4 and 5 list the historical benefits of election for Israel... it's quite clear its speaking of election and how God's election has benefited Israel.

I am entirely familiar and well versed in your standard calvinist reading of Romans 9-11. It's just not convincing. There are so many good reasons to think that that is not how the text says or how it should be read that my mind boggles trying to think of them all at once. One of the most blatently obvious reasons is the Jacob vs Esau thing, which had always been about election not eternal salvation.

So Romans 9 is not the only instance where Paul uses OT texts salvifically, even if in their OT context they do not directly deal with salvation.

So you admit that you misread other passages also?

You SHOULD pay careful attention to the context of Old Testament quotes - their context IS virtually ALWAYS important to Paul's arguments. Taking the context into account often clarifies his arguments tremendously. He's very skilled at utilising context. If you tell me that he's quoting a verse out of context I think it is reasonable to assume that you're the one who's missing the context, not him. His belief is not that we can twist the Scriptures out of context and use them to prove Christianity - he firmly believes that the true and accurate meaning of scripture, understood carefully and precisely and in context, proves the truth of Christianity.

Originally posted by 7thangel

I believe the issue of free will in regards to God's election is best expressly manifested on the story of Esau and Jacob. In the story, free will is totally disregarded in showing God's salvation of predestination/election.

The problem with the above statement is that the election of Jacob over Esau is not to salvation, but to carry the promise/covenant of Abraham. Abraham's promise was that his seed would bless the world. Jacob was chosen to carry this promise and, if you read the story in Genesis, does bless his brother Esau. Israel was to fulfill this role which is why they were elected as God's people. But with their repudiation of Christ, they could not be "vessels of mercy." Therefore, for a time, they became vessels of wrath. The Gentiles and believing Jews became the new creation, the vessel that is remade by the potter, that blesses the world - the church of Jesus Christ.

Concerning God's love for Jacob over Esau, this is a statement that is made much later than the promise (at the time of Persian domination) and is not given as a part of God's choosing, but as a consequence of that choosing. Therefore, it cannot be part of an individual election. It also is speaking of Israel as a people and Edom.

Reformers (with the exception of Karl Barth) continue to miss this point.

Swordman53

Originally posted by Tercel

Some things are blindingly obvious.

Nothing in verses 1-5 suggests at all that the eternal destiny of individuals is in view: Verses 4 and 5 list the historical benefits of election for Israel... it's quite clear its speaking of election and how God's election has benefited Israel.

Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Talking to belivers here.
Rom 8:33 Who will lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God
that justifieth:

Election is in view.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, or rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Belivers are in view as we approach the 9th chapter.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Believers again.
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Rom 8:37 But in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us.

He loves believers, His own, His elect.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Rom 8:39 Nor hight, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The elect can't be seperated from Christ. Ok, so up to here Paul has been focused on the amazing love of Christ for His elect. Then Paul's mind turns to Israel. Yes it's great that God is doing such wonderful things for believers, but what about Israel?
Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me testimony in the Holy Spirit,

Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

These are lost individuals in Israel. Lots of them and Paul is grieved over this. Just prior to this Paul gloried in what belongs to the elect individuals and now he is sad for so many individuals in Israel being lost. How is it that you say, eternal destinies are not in view?

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertain the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Israelites, people, Paul's brethren, rejecting Christ.
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and from whom according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken no effect. For they are not all Israel, who are descendants from Israel? But Paul reminds his readers, that the physical connection to Abraham isn't what it's all about.

Rom 9:7 Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:8 That is, They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul is most certainly talking about salvation of individuals. The Children of God, true believers, the elect.

Tercel,

The problem, Tercel, is that you do not also understand the Old Testament(I am presuming you hold the same understanding with Jaltus on this issue) and thus you do not altogether understand what Paul's message is all about. I seldom explain mysteries, but I am hoping it will be worthwhile presenting you this one.

It is obvious that Paul was speaking of salvation in Romans 9, else why would he wish rather himself be “accursed” if what he was presenting regarding Israel was all about God exercising His power?

In the first place, to what reason did Paul said, “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart?” This refers to Israel being unsaved because of their fall. Paul said in Romans 10:1-3, “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” Israel had suffered apostasy, and thus were not saved. And that is the reason why Paul wished that he be accursed in exchange of Israel’s salvation.

Now, to which, you think, was Paul referring to, saying, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect” and then saying, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel?” That was in regards to God’s word of promise of salvation, according to the word of promise that were given to Isaac, and Jacob. It seems that God’s word of promise had not taken effect because Israel, as Paul was saying, were not saved.


As you can see below the word of God to Israel, they connote that Israel was promised of salvation.

• to whom pertaineth the adoption,
• and the glory,
• and the covenants,
• and the giving of the law,
• and the service of God,
• and the promises;

Perhaps you may have problems understanding all those words connotes to salvation. Nevertheless, the three descriptions: “to whom pertaineth the adoption,” “and the glory,” and “and the promises,” were distinct descriptions for the ELECT. Why, you think, did I say “elect” instead of just saying Israel, Tercel? Do you have any clue?


What Paul was saying is that the word of promise of God to Israel, were not for the Israelites per se, but for the elect! That is where both the Arminians and Calvinists(perhaps not all) failed to understand the context of Jacob and Esau. You both came to acknowledge that the two nations pertain to their physical nations. Paul himself said, “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed,” So Paul was not speaking of physical nations but of the spiritual nations, the saved and the unsaved. Paul was explaining that the word of God to Israel is still in effect because those word of God spoken for Israel were actually for the elect. And that not all Israel are elect, thus Paul argued “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Israel was indeed the one given the promise of salvation. Jesus himself said, “salvation is of the Jews.” But to a true Jew, are those circumcised in the heart. In the same manner, and true Israelite who will received the promises of God are those circumcised in the heart. The true Jews, or Israelites, are the Elect.


And from verse 9, Paul explains how God gave the word of promise to both Isaac and Jacob. And in the context of how the word of promise, that is the word of promise of salvation, was Paul speaking of Isaac and Jacob. And the very fact that Paul mentioned the word of promise to Isaac, saying, “but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” one should know that the issue is about salvation. The promises will be given to the seed, and thus the connotation of “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” meant salvation be on him and his seed. But, of course, Isaac's seed in not the Israelites per see, but rather, the elect.


The connotation, likewise, of the words to Esau and Jacob, saying, “The elder shall serve the younger,” is that the “younger,” Jacob, being given the lordship, and seeing that the promise to the seed was to be rulers and kings, connotes that he was given the promise to be called after the seed. And, perhaps Paul did not anymore give explanation regarding the “elder serving the younger” because his audience knew already the connotation of being a servant. In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul explained the allegory of Isaac, the son of the free; and Ishmael, the son of the servant. Perhaps, Paul knew that they have already read the epistle, or have been preached, or taught of its connotation.


Does this, so far, make sense?

Originally posted by Swordman53

The problem with the above statement is that the election of Jacob over Esau is not to salvation, but to carry the promise/covenant of Abraham. Abraham's promise was that his seed would bless the world. Jacob was chosen to carry this promise and, if you read the story in Genesis, does bless his brother Esau. Israel was to fulfill this role which is why they were elected as God's people. But with their repudiation of Christ, they could not be "vessels of mercy." Therefore, for a time, they became vessels of wrath. The Gentiles and believing Jews became the new creation, the vessel that is remade by the potter, that blesses the world - the church of Jesus Christ.

Concerning God's love for Jacob over Esau, this is a statement that is made much later than the promise (at the time of Persian domination) and is not given as a part of God's choosing, but as a consequence of that choosing. Therefore, it cannot be part of an individual election. It also is speaking of Israel as a people and Edom.

Reformers (with the exception of Karl Barth) continue to miss this point.

Swordman53

If we take strictly Paul's words, Paul refers to the seed as Christ, see Galatians 3:16. And that the seed will be the heirs of the promise, meaning heirs of salvation. But how then did Israel became part of the seed? It was through the promise of "adoption;" see my post for Tercel.

Now Paul admits that the promise was indeed, as you read in the OT, given to the nation of Israel. He was not denying it. And me either, is not denying it. But Paul was explaining a "revelation," saying that the promise was actually for the elect, not to the literal nation of Israel.

If we take literally the words in the OT, it would seem that God failed to deliver His promise. Thus Paul popped up the question about the word of God taking no effect. But Paul explains that the word of promise was actually meant for the elect, saying, "not all Israel, are of Israel." That meant that God is referring to a different Israel beside of the literal nation of Israel. And, actually, the Israel that is beside the literal nation of Israel is the ELECT, they were the true ones being given the promise.

In general, you fell to the same ignorance with Tercel and Jaltus. You all thought that Paul was agrees that those word of promise were to the literal nation; so was the though of Israelites. But Paul was telling a different thing, a revelation of what the promise truly meant, and to whom it is truly addressed.

Great article, Tercel. Origien had quite an insight given him by God that his words ring so loudly the sound of truth. I have no problem saying "of God' since he violates no other accounts given us in the scriptures but to the contrary, supports them. In such a time as this we need fresh clarification concerning God's word. The article is a great help to all who can read.

Btw, Origien, as you no doubt already know, was later convicted of heresy and given the left foot of fellowship for retaining in himself "unorthodox" opinions.. I remind you because there are some weak-minded here who, feeling threatened, wish to do that to you, me and anyone else who disagrees with them concerning there wilted "TULIP". They love the flower more than sound doctrine and the willingness to be adjusted by it and will therefore grasp at the [any] opportunity to brand anyone who may have, to there understanding, an unorthodox point of view/opinion/teaching. TWEB only allows the for the orthodox position to be held in the theology forums. So this can be quite selective in some of the minds of those with a hidden agenda who wish to raise the issue, press to make a case against you and care not about any burning stakes....or truth.

Originally posted by Ormly

Great article, Tercel. Origien had quite an insight given him by God that his words ring so loudly the sound of truth. I have no problem saying "of God' since he violates no other accounts given us in the scriptures but to the contrary, supports them. In such a time as this we need fresh clarification concerning God's word. The article is a great help to all who can read.

Btw, Origien, as you no doubt already know, was later convicted of heresy and given the left foot of fellowship for retaining in himself "unorthodox" opinions.. I remind you because there are some weak-minded here who, feeling threatened, wish to do that to you, me and anyone else who disagrees with them concerning there wilted "TULIP". They love the flower more than sound doctrine and the willingness to be adjusted by it and will therefore grasp at the [any] opportunity to brand anyone who may have, to there understanding, an unorthodox point of view/opinion/teaching. TWEB only allows the for the orthodox position to be held in the theology forums. So this can be quite selective in some of the minds of those with a hidden agenda who wish to raise the issue, press to make a case against you and care not about any burning stakes....or truth.

Your arguments are needed to convince us where our faults are, not personal vain glorying.

You knew that God will bless you greatly in taking patience to show any misintepretations they(even I) have, if there is. (Did TWeb exist to patronize, or to seek truth?) But rather wasting a post such as above, it is but show of pride running in your veins.

7thangel,

The position you present seems to be a standard one. ie far from you educating me in my ignorance, you said nothing that I haven't already seen oodles of times before.

However, you didn't really address the issue clearly. I think that eternal salvation needs to be very carefully distinguished from other here-on-earth types of blessings and salvations. Eternal salvation was never a particularly big issue to the Jews, but it is a big issue to Evangelicals today. Hence when Evangelicals read the Bible they see hundreds of apparent references to eternal salvation that were never meant that way.

Romans 9 is the classic case - Calvinists come along with their eternal-salvation tinted reading glasses and say (subconsciously) "This could potentially be interpreted as referring to eternal salvation rather than earthly blessings, therefore it must be referring to eternal salvation". Thus they make absurd statements about how the Jacob and Esau story is a perfect example of God sovereignly electing individuals to eternal salvation when the OT makes quite clear that God elected nations not individuals and to this-worldly blessings not eternal salvation.

The Jewish nation had always been interested in this-worldly blessings. They had believed they were the choosen nation long before they believed in any sort of afterlife... they certainly never thought they had been choosen to go to heaven. They thought God rewarded good and punished evil, blessed and cursed, all in this life. Their eventual belief in afterlife only developed gradually, and by the time of Jesus many of the Jews still did not believe it. All our knowledge of Judaism as we know it in the period 1000BC-400AD points to the fact that when we see "salvation" or blesssings or similar in the Jewish-Christian texts of the NT our first guess at its meaning should be of a this-worldly salvation and blessings in this life.

I can see lots and lots of good reasons to think Romans 9 is speaking of temporal blessings not eternal salvation. Neither you nor GoBahnsen have given me any good reason to change my mind.

Originally posted by Tercel

7thangel,

The position you present seems to be a standard one. ie far from you educating me in my ignorance, you said nothing that I haven't already seen oodles of times before.

However, you didn't really address the issue clearly. I think that eternal salvation needs to be very carefully distinguished from other here-on-earth types of blessings and salvations. Eternal salvation was never a particularly big issue to the Jews, but it is a big issue to Evangelicals today. Hence when Evangelicals read the Bible they see hundreds of apparent references to eternal salvation that were never meant that way.

Romans 9 is the classic case - Calvinists come along with their eternal-salvation tinted reading glasses and say (subconsciously) "This could potentially be interpreted as referring to eternal salvation rather than earthly blessings, therefore it must be referring to eternal salvation". Thus they make absurd statements about how the Jacob and Esau story is a perfect example of God sovereignly electing individuals to eternal salvation when the OT makes quite clear that God elected nations not individuals and to this-worldly blessings not eternal salvation.

The Jewish nation had always been interested in this-worldly blessings. They had believed they were the choosen nation long before they believed in any sort of afterlife... they certainly never thought they had been choosen to go to heaven. They thought God rewarded good and punished evil, blessed and cursed, all in this life. Their eventual belief in afterlife only developed gradually, and by the time of Jesus many of the Jews still did not believe it. All our knowledge of Judaism as we know it in the period 1000BC-400AD points to the fact that when we see "salvation" or blesssings or similar in the Jewish-Christian texts of the NT our first guess at its meaning should be of a this-worldly salvation and blessings in this life.

I can see lots and lots of good reasons to think Romans 9 is speaking of temporal blessings not eternal salvation. Neither you nor GoBahnsen have given me any good reason to change my mind.

Tercel, I appreciate your response. And please don't take it that I am educating you, nor to think I have the presumption that I am in a better state spiritually.

As touching Romans 9, I believe that I raised the issue. And that Paul was presenting the story of Jacob and Esau, and Isaac that differs to common Jewish perspective at that time. And as I see, you too are taking the same understanding, or position that the Jews had. But there, in Romans 9, Paul stresses the distinction of the literal Israel, to the Elect Israel. Thus, in way, clearly show that he was "correcting" the hearers of their misunderstanding to whom the blessings were promised, and the whole implication of the promise. For upon mentioning the words "no all israel are of israel," which meant that Paul was correcting the misunderstood recepient of the promise as the elect, what then would be the sense, or what more blessing that the non-elect can receive? What other reason of identifying the correct recepient if the aforesaid word of promises that Paul described in the preceding verse be just mere blessing, and not salvation?

Anyways, why would you consider those words of promised that I enumerated be considered just mere blessing and not pertaining to eternal salvation? I woudl appreciate your response on this.

Sincerely,
7thangel

7thangel,

I totally agree with you about the elect being changed.

What other reason of identifying the correct recepient if the aforesaid word of promises that Paul described in the preceding verse be just mere blessing, and not salvation?

Because Paul spoke in Rom 9:4-5 about all the blessings God has given Israel and that they have receive, and he has in mind the latest one: the messiah. This last blessing appears to have failed - it has gone to the Gentiles instead of the Jews. So Paul grapples with the question of whether God's word has failed. His concerns are about the fairness of God's temporal blessings - the fact that the Gentiles seem to be receiving blessings promised to the Jews. Paul's answer is that God's determination of the heirs of the promise is not done by normal human standards (ie the eldest child inherits), but rather God chooses the heirs for whatever reasons he might have (as was exemplified when he choose Israel instead of Edom despite the fact that Israel was not in the direct line of inheritence because Esau was the older brother)... it should be noted that the Jewish Rabbis believed God's choice of Israel rather than Edom was rational not arbitrary. Paul believes the reason God chooses people is "faith". The Gentiles had faith, therefore God made them heirs to the promises. The Jews didn't have faith, so God cut them out of the inheritence. But, Paul says, should the Jews ever come to faith, God will be happy to graft them into the tree of inheritence again (ch 11).

Paul's opponents maintain that God had promised blessings to Israel and he therefore had to bless the Jews and not the gentiles. But Paul insists that throughout scripture God's promises had been given to people who were faithful because of their faith, not to Israel alone. Thus it is fair of God to give blessings to the faithful now and reject the unfaithful in the present time.

Thus the discussion is not about eternal salvation, but about election to temporal blessings, and the election is not arbitrary but conditional.