Romans 9, neither Calvinist nor Arminian

[bleitzel]

I don't think Hammster shares your theology - I believe he (or she) subscribes to a theology of personal election to a final state. And from what I have gleaned from you, I think you believe otherwise.

Ha ha, c'mon, I was hoping Hammster was having a change of heart!

 

[Hammster]

EXACTLY Hammster! The Jews have/had always taught that Pharoah was the bad guy and they were the good guys. That God saved them from Pharoah. But now, Paul was saying that the JEWS were like Pharoah, hardened by God, and he was saving the Gentiles! Can gou believe it?!

What I believe is that you've not interacted with my post, and have instead used what you think is humor to avoid doing so.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Get used to it ... Christian forums are filled with 'em!
Some people on these forums are:
-- ignorant of Scripture
-- minions of Satan
-- too proud to admit they've been wrong
etc.

I don't think this was directed at me, but this type of rhetoric is one of the primary reasons I was hesitant about engaging in this discussion. Each side believes they have the right interpretation, the right following, the right exegesis, and will defend it to the death. Unfortunately, not many of these conversations ever end up changing minds, and thus all effort is essentially wasted. All I know is that I am firmly Calvinistic based on years of studying Scripture and reading various authors by both Calvinists and Arminians. Needless to say, I have simply never been convinced by anything other than the Calvinist position. Yet I for some reason constantly weary myself with these often fruitless conversations that almost inevitably turn into mud-slinging contests.

That being said, I no longer wish to discuss this publicly. I refuse to get caught up in another one of these shameful discussions.

As for you, bleitzel, I really appreciate your attitude, and I will still work on Romans 9, but I will not post it publicly. I will send it to you privately, and we can perhaps continue our discussion there. Being in seminary myself, I simply don't have time to respond to all of the comments from people who most likely will refuse to read my words and thus will paint a caricatured straw man. I just don't have the patience, time, or energy for that kind of stuff.

Hope this is acceptable.

 

[bleitzel]

I don't think this was directed at me, but this type of rhetoric is one of the primary reasons I was hesitant about engaging in this discussion. Each side believes they have the right interpretation, the right following, the right exegesis, and will defend it to the death. Unfortunately, not many of these conversations ever end up changing minds, and thus all effort is essentially wasted. All I know is that I am firmly Calvinistic based on years of studying Scripture and reading various authors by both Calvinists and Arminians. Needless to say, I have simply never been convinced by anything other than the Calvinist position. Yet I for some reason constantly weary myself with these often fruitless conversations that almost inevitably turn into mud-slinging contests.

That being said, I no longer wish to discuss this publicly. I refuse to get caught up in another one of these shameful discussions.

As for you, bleitzel, I really appreciate your attitude, and I will still work on Romans 9, but I will not post it publicly. I will send it to you privately, and we can perhaps continue our discussion there. Being in seminary myself, I simply don't have time to respond to all of the comments from people who most likely will refuse to read my words and thus will paint a caricatured straw man. I just don't have the patience, time, or energy for that kind of stuff.

Hope this is acceptable.

Fantastically so, my sentiments mirror yours.

 

[bling]

I think individual Jewish Christians and individual Gentile Christians are being addressed in Romans 9, but as different groups. The individual would be asking Paul this about the other individuals.

Paul uses two teaching methods that are taught in secular philosophy classes and are used even in secular classes as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau?

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual with this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position nor would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison.

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.



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

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” was created for destruction (they were not made from the start “clay pigeons”). Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction.

To understand this is Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20.

 

[ZacharyB]

The election that Paul is talking about he re in Romans 9 and also in Ephesians 1
is the dismantling of the then currently held Jewish concept of election.
They thought it was a some-chosen-some-not-chosen paradigm
but Paul was showing no, it's an all-are-chosen one.

Ephesians and Colossians were specifically written ONLY to the "faithful" saints!
I.E. All of the explanations of who they were (and the promises, etc.) were
ONLY for those who were elected before the foundation of the world.

All of this was NOT for 2 other groups sitting in those churches:
1) those who had not received the Holy Spirit
2) those true believers who were NOT part of God's elect
(they would eventually choose to fall away, fall from grace, lose their salvation)

 

[bleitzel]

Ephesians and Colossians were specifically written ONLY to the "faithful" saints!...All of the explanations of who they were and the promises were
ONLY for those who were elected before the foundation of the world.

Zachary, that opinion is a pigeon hole that we don't need to put the apostle into. And it's one that doesn't come directly from the text. Many theologians promote that thinking because they have to to support a certain theological system they have developed. You're asserting it here as if it's self evident but it's not self evident, it doesn't come from the text directly.

1. Nowhere in the letters do any of the Apostles state that their messages are only for believers. To state this one must extrapolate the idea.
2. Scholars widely agree that many of the Apostles' letters were circular, that they were intended to be read by many people, many churches, even though they may have been addressed to one specific group of people. So we know that the Apostles wrote the letters with people of many types of backgrounds in mind. We could say with certainty that among this audience the Apostles would have assumed gentile-believers and jewish-believers.
   
3. And among this audience, like any church audience in the US or the world, there are church goers who are believers to a lesser or greater degree. In fact, in just about any church there are people who are not even believers who attend regularly or semi-regularly.
4. And lastly, there's every reason to believe that the Apostles wrote with principals in mind that would be applicable to all people, believers and non-believers. So that their message was intended even for non believers. Much like Jesus' preaching days, the messages the Apostles give in their letters were intended to teach all people about the true God and the true faith.

To suggest that the Apostles' letters were meant only for believers is a dangerous assertion that we should not take lightly. Such an assertion has the risk of cornering us into a type of theology where we see hidden meanings and hidden definitions of words that no regular person would see and that the Apostles' would not have intended.

But that's what we've seen happen. Look at a debate over simple verses like John 3:16 and you'll find some people who try to argue that "whosoever" really only means "whichever predestined believers."

 

[bleitzel]

Hi Bling,

I surmise that our conclusions don't differ widely but iron sharpens iron so I'd like to challenge a couple finer points of your take on Romans 9.

I think individual Jewish Christians and individual Gentile Christians are being addressed in Romans 9, but as different groups.

I really don't agree. I think Paul is clear in that he is talking about non-believing Jews as a whole. Paul starts this chapter off talking about those of his own race, the people of Israel. And it's clear from the context that it's the non-believing members that he wishes he could cut himself off from Christ to save.

The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just?"

I think that there's several different questions. Verses 1-9 address the question 'Has God's promises to Israel failed?' In verse 10 I strongly believe the "Not only that" shows that Paul is changing the question he is answering to be 'Why would God allow the Gentiles to come in at such a late date?' and I believe that can be shown by the answer at the end of verse 12 ""The older will serve the younger."" And at verse 14 he obviously changes the question again to 'Is God unjust?'

If God treated you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

It's both. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and have lived around and worked with a fair number of Jews in my lifetime. When you talk to a lot of Jews about God you eventually get to the subject of 'being God's chosen people.' I've found that there are always 2 responses. All Jews believe that they are God's chosen people, and the gentiles are not, but they have 2 reactions to that assertion. Some Jews will tell you 'I don't believe in all that chosen stuff. I mean, how could a loving God create some people to love and create others to be left out, unloved?' And the other Jews say 'I don't know why God chose us and I don't care, I'm just glad I'm one of the chosen people. Sucks to be a gentile.'

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Actually, it's the reverse. Paul has been answering objections from his hypothetical non-believeing Jewish objector that God's promises didn't fail, that God is letting the gentiles into the family of God at this late date, that God is not unjust in doing so, the Jews don't hold some ownership of the sacred position of 'God's children' just because they thought they were his for so long and were supposedly faithful to him. No, they have to accept that maybe they, the Jews, were the common vessel, and maybe the gentiles were the one made for honor. Paul's reversing all their ages old identity stories to make his point that they don't to tell God what he can and cannot do. If God says the gentiles get to be part of the family then that's what it is.

 

[Hammster]

Zachary, that opinion is a pigeon hole that we don't need to put the apostle into. And it's one that doesn't come directly from the text. Many theologians promote that thinking because they have to to support a certain theological system they have developed. You're asserting it here as if it's self evident but it's not self evident, it doesn't come from the text directly.

1. Nowhere in the letters do any of the Apostles state that their messages are only for believers. To state this one must extrapolate the idea.
2. Scholars widely agree that many of the Apostles' letters were circular, that they were intended to be read by many people, many churches, even though they may have been addressed to one specific group of people. So we know that the Apostles wrote the letters with people of many types of backgrounds in mind. We could say with certainty that among this audience the Apostles would have assumed gentile-believers and jewish-believers.
   
3. And among this audience, like any church audience in the US or the world, there are church goers who are believers to a lesser or greater degree. In fact, in just about any church there are people who are not even believers who attend regularly or semi-regularly.
4. And lastly, there's every reason to believe that the Apostles wrote with principals in mind that would be applicable to all people, believers and non-believers. So that their message was intended even for non believers. Much like Jesus' preaching days, the messages the Apostles give in their letters were intended to teach all people about the true God and the true faith.

To suggest that the Apostles' letters were meant only for believers is a dangerous assertion that we should not take lightly. Such an assertion has the risk of cornering us into a type of theology where we see hidden meanings and hidden definitions of words that no regular person would see and that the Apostles' would not have intended.

But that's what we've seen happen. Look at a debate over simple verses like John 3:16 and you'll find some people who try to argue that "whosoever" really only means "whichever predestined believers."

Whosoever believes means those who are believing. That's it.

 

[lewiley]

EXACTLY Hammster! The Jews have/had always taught that Pharoah was the bad guy and they were the good guys. That God saved them from Pharoah. But now, Paul was saying that the JEWS were like Pharoah, hardened by God, and he was saving the Gentiles! Can gou believe it?!

And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. - Exodus 4:21

This came before Pharoah ever hardened his own heart. God didn't just decide to harden it because Pharoah had already done so. No, God did it because He has mercy on whom He has mercy.

God raised Pharoah up to show His power. From start to finish, God was in control. I can look at Romans 9 and see that at face value. Those who hold to a reformed viewpoint do not need to dissect and marginalize the text. Those who hate what it says will continue to say that it doesn't say what it says, and that Paul meant something different.

In the Hebrew there are two different words used for hardening. The first is to strengthen and the second is to become stubborn. Pharoah first strengthened his heart then he finally admitted he sinned then he became stubborn. That's when God hardened his heart in the second manner, because he knew he was going to deliver all the plagues. Pharaoh was going to have to see the end of it, as well as all Egypt and the Jews.

 

[Hammster]

In the Hebrew there are two different words used for hardening. The first is to strengthen and the second is to become stubborn. Pharoah first strengthened his heart then he finally admitted he sinned then he became stubborn. That's when God hardened his heart in the second manner, because he knew he was going to deliver all the plagues. Pharaoh was going to have to see the end of it, as well as all Egypt and the Jews.

Again, God said He'd harden Pharoah's heart BEFORE Pharoah ever hardened his heart.

 

[Light of the East]

Really? This remarkable claim (and it is absolutely remarkable!) is not supported by even a shred of this passage. Does not Paul himself say, "When Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"?

What is this passage discussing, regarding Esau and Jacob? It has to do with the covenant blessing, not eternal life or eternal death. We see this from the words "the elder shall serve the younger" This action turns the covenant norms on their head, for normally it is the younger who serves the older, as the older is in line to be the next covenant head of the family.

And why is Paul discussing this? Because the Jews couldn't really believe that the covenant was over and that they had lost it by their killing of Christ. Paul uses the example to show that God's choice regarding this position of covenant privilege belongs to Him and not to them just because they were the "elder son" of the family. They blew it, and Paul is letting them know it in no uncertain terms, just as he let them know that their circumcision was no free pass into heaven in both Romans and Galatians.

But Calvinists pick this up and make a whole doctrine out of a couple of verses, an idea that God would actually and actively elect some to go to hell, to enter into torment without end. And they do so with a certain amount of glee in their hearts that they are elect. It is not only prideful, but it totally violates that which we do know of the Father, that He is love.

Love would never do such a thing to His own child.

 

[LARRY PEARSON]

Gentiles came into the Jewish faith even in Esther's time. Esther8:17

 

[Hammster]

What is this passage discussing, regarding Esau and Jacob? It has to do with the covenant blessing, not eternal life or eternal death. We see this from the words "the elder shall serve the younger" This action turns the covenant norms on their head, for normally it is the younger who serves the older, as the older is in line to be the next covenant head of the family.

And why is Paul discussing this? Because the Jews couldn't really believe that the covenant was over and that they had lost it by their killing of Christ. Paul uses the example to show that God's choice regarding this position of covenant privilege belongs to Him and not to them just because they were the "elder son" of the family. They blew it, and Paul is letting them know it in no uncertain terms, just as he let them know that their circumcision was no free pass into heaven in both Romans and Galatians.

But Calvinists pick this up and make a whole doctrine out of a couple of verses, an idea that God would actually and actively elect some to go to hell, to enter into torment without end. And they do so with a certain amount of glee in their hearts that they are elect. It is not only prideful, but it totally violates that which we do know of the Father, that He is love.

Love would never do such a thing to His own child.

Not all are God's children.

 

[alexxmedeiros]

I would just like to point out one fundamental flaw in your interpretation of the text which involves romans 9:6-13.

I agree with you when you say that what Paul writes in verses 6-9, brings an objection to the table, namely: "Paul if what you are teaching is true then has Gods promise to Israel failed?" Then like you say, Paul demonstrates that being a child of God is based on faith and not genealogy.

Therefore, back in verse 6 What paul means is that: Not everyone who is born of flesh inherits the Kingdom of God but those who are children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Thus saying "They are not all israel (born of God) who are descendants of Israel (born of flesh)"

To make it as clear as day : not everyone who is born a Jew will be saved but rather only those who have faith will be saved.

This is obviosuly talking about individuals being born in Israel (born of flesh) and individuals coming to faith and then being regarded as descendants. (Born of God)

So you must interpret Esau and Jacob as being individuals or you run into this problem....

You say that the Jews are Esau and the Gentiles are Jacob. However by doing this you are making the previous verses illogical.

For example when it says, "for they are not all Israel (born of God) that are descended from Israel (born of flesh)"

By making this about Jews and Gentiles in general and not about Jacob (born of God) and Esau (born of flesh) individually, you make verse 6 say "For they are not all Jews that are descended from Gentiles" rather then "For they are not all born of God, that are born of the flesh"

Do you understand my arguement? if not please let me know so i can clarify.

​

 

[expos4ever]

Not all are God's children.

Not sure what you mean here. But in case you are taking the standard "some are predestined to heaven, some are predestined to hell" line, Romans 9 does not support such a view in the slightest. The issue in Romans 9 (and on through chapters 10 and 11) is how God has not been unfaithful to His covenant promises to the nation of Israel, despite the disturbing fact that most Jews have rejected their rightful Messiah (according to Paul, anyway). Yes, there is a kind of "election" described here - but it is an election at the "national level": God has "elected" Israel as a nation to be hardened so that salvation can be brought to the whole world. The last bit of Romans 11 makes this very clear.

 

[ZacharyB]

Being in seminary myself ...
Hope this is acceptable.

Sorry, but it is not acceptable at all.
Studying in a cemetery (er, seminary) is extremely dangerous to your spiritual health.
I thought everyone knew this by now.
Sorry, but you're trying to run down a snake hole.
Choose the correct teachings of the precious Holy Spirit as you study Scripture!

 

[expos4ever]

Do you understand my arguement? if not please let me know so i can clarify.

I don't quite follow your argument. I think the argument that Esau=Israel and Jacob=Gentiles is a very strong one indeed. But I also agree with your analysis about what is the real marker of membership in the Kingdom of God. Another reason to see Esau as standing for Israel (and Jacob for the Gentiles) is the parable of the prodigal son - in context, I think it is clear that Jesus sets the nation of Israel in the role of the jealous older brother and the Gentiles in the role of the prodigal. I know this may not be a common way of reading this parable, but I think it has some merit. Of course, this parable may have lots of other meanings as well.

I guess I think you can both be right here - I see no reason why Esau and Jacob cannot be used to make both the point you make (about faith as the true marker of covenant (Kingdom of God) membership) and the point that bleitzel makes - that God has used Israel to "serve" the interests of the Gentiles. I guess I would say that I think you are applying overly rigid principles of logic in your post - I get what you are saying, I just think that language is a little more "fluid" than you analysis assumes - I think Paul can use Esau and Jacob to make different points at the same time.

 

[AlexDTX]

This is a controversial debate for sure. I am in agreement with Bleitzel and find his arguments sensible. But I don't base my position on technical scriptural arguments, instead I base my view on my personal knowledge of God Himself. The Bible makes a very straightforward statement that He is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9), but that all should come to repentance.

Hermeneutics based upon academic study without regard for the heart and character of God himself, tend to show a wrong understanding of God. Also, we overlook the incredible impact of the gospel on world history when we look at the Old Testament as though the people are the same as those in the regeneration. The Old Testament writers wrote from a hardened heart point of view of God, not from a regenerate p.o.v. And while all the lost today have the same hardened hearts as the Old Testament people, the mitigating influence of the church on the world is profound. Look at how the nations changed after the gospel began to spread!

Bleitzel, thank you for your intelligent and thorough answers. When I see a someone writing large blocks of information in a forum I usually just scan them, but your comments and answers were gripping and bore witness with my spirit so read them all. God bless you.

 

[expos4ever]

This is a controversial debate for sure. I am in agreement with Bleitzel and find his arguments sensible. But I don't base my position on technical scriptural arguments, instead I base my view on my personal knowledge of God Himself. The Bible makes a very straightforward statement that He is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9), but that all should come to repentance.

I agree with your take on 2 Pet 3:9 but please be aware (if you are not already) that the "limited atonement" people have arguments as to why that text does not say what you and I believe it says. To be fair, those arguments need to be answered. I have a detailed argument that makes the case that, yes, the "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 is a "universal" all. I can present it, if you like.