Romans 9, neither Calvinist nor Arminian

[Hammster]

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.

What I meant was that not all are God's children, which was a point the person I quoted was making.

 

[expos4ever]

What I meant was that not all are God's children, which was a point the person I quoted was making.

Ok, fair enough. I certainly agree that "not all are God's children".

 

[Light of the East]

Not all are God's children.

Well, again, this is where we disagree.

You need to use Scripture and the analogies in Scripture to understand why this is wrong.

God describes Himself in Scripture by the analogy of "father." Adam is said to be the "son of God." Not a vassal slave as the Westminster Confession states, but a son. That puts the relationship on a whole different plane than that of a mere creature.

Using Scripture again, look at how both God and Paul treat the familial relationship of the Jews:

Jos 24:3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.

Now was Abraham really the father of all those men there? Of course not. The best that you could say is that he was perhaps great-great-great grandfather. Yet God uses this language, calling Abraham "father." Which makes all of the Jews there, even the ones who were not directly linked to Abraham, to be his children. In like manner, Paul uses the same language.

Which means that if Adam is our father, the father of the whole human race, then God is also the Father of all who ever lived or ever shall live, for Adam was "the son of God."

And this is one of those places where I spoke of in the other thread that I have a serious problem with Calvinist anthropology. All mankind are part of the family of God. All. No exceptions.

 

[Hammster]

Well, again, this is where we disagree.

You need to use Scripture and the analogies in Scripture to understand why this is wrong.

God describes Himself in Scripture by the analogy of "father." Adam is said to be the "son of God." Not a vassal slave as the Westminster Confession states, but a son. That puts the relationship on a whole different plane than that of a mere creature.

Using Scripture again, look at how both God and Paul treat the familial relationship of the Jews:

Jos 24:3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.

Now was Abraham really the father of all those men there? Of course not. The best that you could say is that he was perhaps great-great-great grandfather. Yet God uses this language, calling Abraham "father." Which makes all of the Jews there, even the ones who were not directly linked to Abraham, to be his children. In like manner, Paul uses the same language.

Which means that if Adam is our father, the father of the whole human race, then God is also the Father of all who ever lived or ever shall live, for Adam was "the son of God."

And this is one of those places where I spoke of in the other thread that I have a serious problem with Calvinist anthropology. All mankind are part of the family of God. All. No exceptions.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, - John 1:12

 

[bling]

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 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. .

Paul’s method of teaching in Romans is virtually exclusively using the diatribe method and especially in Romans 9. The diatribe method especially as Paul uses it has an imaginary individual asking the question. Paul says specifically: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us?... There are no nonbelieving Jews being addressed.

Look at the times Paul uses this method and the questions in just Ro 9:

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? That “we” has to be those he is addressing “Roman Jew and Gentile Christians and Himself”, there are no nonbelieving Jews being addressed.

19 …“Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?

It is a human being and not a nation talking back.

‘Why did you make me like this?

24… whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

So it is not all Jews or all gentiles.

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.

The example Paul uses to draw his audience into the possible conclusion of “What then shall we say? Is God unjust?” are talking about individuals and not nations: Esau and Jacob, Isaac and Ishmael , Pharaoh and Moses .

Again not nations.

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?'.

The question is never asked in verses 1-9 “Has God's promises to Israel failed?” but Paul says specifically: “It is not as though God’s word had failed.” Is that a diatribe question, because it is totally different than the other diatribe question Paul uses in Romans and we are redefining a diatribe?

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.'
.

It really does not matter what Jews think today since Paul is address Roman Christian Jews and Gentile Christian Jews in the first century, so do you know any Jewish Christians and what they say?

All of Romans is excellently addressing a huge problem within the churches in Roman, which is somewhat caused by God’s selection of the Jews to be set apart. This main theme of Romans did not stop at Romans 9 and will continue to the end. The three main issues separating the Jewish and Gentile Christians are: circumcision, food restrictions and holy days.

Overall the gentile Christians would feel inferior to the Jewish Christians because the Jewish Christians where prepared from birth by Moses Law to abstain from certain foods, be circumcised before even thinking about it, and had worked with keeping the Sabbath. The Jewish Christians seem to teaching the Gentiles they have to keep these parts of the Law.

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.

It is not a non-believing Jew, since they are not in Paul’s audience, and Paul specifically uses “one of you, you, we, us, me and human being.

Wow, you are the first to present the idea the “the Jews, were the common vessel”, which would not make any sense to Paul’s audience (Jewish and Gentile Christians).

If you just think about it: The Jews were created for a very special purpose [like the jar for the lamp oil in the temple], but the Gentile where made for a common (general) purpose. That does not mean God made them any less valuable to Him, since everything that leaves the Potter’s shop has his name on it.

It is the individual Christian gentile needing to understand that even though they did not start out as good (prepared) as the Jewish Christians; God, the Potter, is still working with them and they are just as valuable in the father’s house. This is seen better in Tim. 2: 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. 22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Even if you start out “common”, if you cleanse yourself you can become special (holy).


Remember you are trying to put yourself in the shoes of those Paul is addressing since that is whom Paul is trying to communicate with. The Gentile Christians where having some real problems the Jewish Christians in Rome (which Paul addresses) , but Paul also points out to all the Christians the Jewish Christians are having some really huge problems.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul’s method of teaching in Romans is virtually exclusively using the diatribe method and especially in Romans 9. The diatribe method especially as Paul uses it has an imaginary individual asking the question. Paul says specifically: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us?... There are no nonbelieving Jews being addressed.

I think the context is really clear and I am surprised at your interpretation. Look at the context:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Having described the sad state of the nation of Israel and having mentioned the covenant promises no less, the clear issue for Paul is this: Given what has happened to Israel, has God failed to honour His promises to her?.

I would think this is really almost beyond debate.

So even though Paul uses an individual opponent in his diatribe method - how could be otherwise given the very nature of this technique of argument? - that individual clearly stands for a class of people (unbelieving Jews) who might object that God is being unfair.

I can and likely will say more about this matter in further posts.

 

[Light of the East]

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, - John 1:12

Okay. It's Scripture. Now let me go read it in context and think about it.

Did you get my conversation?

 

[expos4ever]

Which means that if Adam is our father, the father of the whole human race, then God is also the Father of all who ever lived or ever shall live, for Adam was "the son of God."

I am no fan of Calvinism, but I think you are over-extending the metaphor here. I suggest the reality is that we have a picture (in the scriptures) of man "breaking" the father-son relation at the event of the fall, followed by a long work by God to "re-adopt" his lost sons. And not all end up in the adopted family at the end.

 

[Hammster]

Okay. It's Scripture. Now let me go read it in context and think about it.

Did you get my conversation?

I've read it in context. I get it. I don't need gymnastics to make it say something other than what it says. Your argument was based on assumptions not in scripture.

 

[Light of the East]

I've read it in context. I get it. I don't need gymnastics to make it say something other than what it says. Your argument was based on assumptions not in scripture.

Well, then, as we discussed earlier then, so is "total depravity" because those words are not found in Scripture either, are they?

So the question becomes whether we become Bible literalists and use only a literal hermeneutic, or if we take the analogies which are in Scripture and extract truth from them rather than looking for word-for-word dogma.

 

[Light of the East]

I am no fan of Calvinism, but I think you are over-extending the metaphor here. I suggest the reality is that we have a picture (in the scriptures) of man "breaking" the father-son relation at the event of the fall, followed by a long work by God to "re-adopt" his lost sons. And not all end up in the adopted family at the end.

Let's use the Parable of the Prodigal. At no time did the Prodigal stop being his father's son. He did, however, lose the love, fellowship, and care of his father by his behavior. And had he died in the foreign land in the pig sty of sin, he would have never had that love and fellowship back.

I don't know if it is "re-adopting" so much, since we are already children. I'll have to ponder the various analogies and come up with something which properly fits.

 

[expos4ever]

Let's use the Parable of the Prodigal. At no time did the Prodigal stop being his father's son. He did, however, lose the love, fellowship, and care of his father by his behavior. And had he died in the foreign land in the pig sty of sin, he would have never had that love and fellowship back.

I don't know if it is "re-adopting" so much, since we are already children. I'll have to ponder the various analogies and come up with something which properly fits.

I agree that there is at least a sense in which all human beings - from Hitler all the way up to the Pope - are "children of God". But what we are really talking about in this thread is the matter of who is "saved" - children in that sense. And unless you are a Universalist - and maybe you are - surely you agree that not all people wind up "saved".

 

[sdowney717]

Let's use the Parable of the Prodigal. At no time did the Prodigal stop being his father's son. He did, however, lose the love, fellowship, and care of his father by his behavior. And had he died in the foreign land in the pig sty of sin, he would have never had that love and fellowship back.

I don't know if it is "re-adopting" so much, since we are already children. I'll have to ponder the various analogies and come up with something which properly fits.

That is right, the son that went away, came back because he was a son of the Father.
The children of Satan draw back from the light and will not come to the light that their evil deeds be exposed, but everyone who comes to the light show that their deeds are wrought in God.
Wrought in God means that God was working in their life for their good, all things were together for good for those who are called according to his purposes. You can not say the same about all the people of the world since obviously some remain children of Satan. Give up your human understanding and lean on what the scriptures say.

JESUS said this
John 3
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

 

[AlexDTX]

What I meant was that not all are God's children, which was a point the person I quoted was making.

I agree. God only has one child, a Son whom we know as Jesus. All who put their faith in Jesus and accept the grace given to us all, abide in His Son and are thus God's sons.

 

[Hammster]

Well, then, as we discussed earlier then, so is "total depravity" because those words are not found in Scripture either, are they?

So the question becomes whether we become Bible literalists and use only a literal hermeneutic, or if we take the analogies which are in Scripture and extract truth from them rather than looking for word-for-word dogma.

The difference is, I can take things like Romans 3:10-20, and other verses that describe man's sinfulness and inability to please God apart from Christ and come with with a theology that describes the extent of man's fallenness.

And I can look at averse from John that says we are given rights to become children of God and come to the conclusion that we are adopted into the family.

What you did was create an analogy that wasn't there.

 

[Light of the East]

I agree that there is at least a sense in which all human beings - from Hitler all the way up to the Pope - are "children of God". But what we are really talking about in this thread is the matter of who is "saved" - children in that sense. And unless you are a Universalist - and maybe you are - surely you agree that not all people wind up "saved".

Not so sure about that. Been reading some Universalist writings which make a tremendous amount of sense. Also found out that several of our highly respected Early Fathers of the Church believed that Christ's salvation was applicable to all mankind and would eventually win out.

Still pondering the subject.

 

[Light of the East]

The difference is, I can take things like Romans 3:10-20, and other verses that describe man's sinfulness and inability to please God apart from Christ and come with with a theology that describes the extent of man's fallenness.

And I can look at averse from John that says we are given rights to become children of God and come to the conclusion that we are adopted into the family.

What you did was create an analogy that wasn't there.

That's not correct. Again -- think covenant. And listen to the rest of the Scripture.

1Ki 3:10 And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing.

Psa 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

Oh, here's the one I was looking for:

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Sinful Enoch pleased God. Calvinist theology says this is impossible. Scripture says otherwise. So there must be another understanding to Romans 3. Perhaps it has to do with the context of the battle that Paul was having with the Judaisers, who thought that they could redeem themselves by dint of their being Jewish and their keeping of circumcision. Paul fought this all his life.

You also are taking this out of context. Romans 3:10 and the verses that follow are an exegesis of Psalms 14:3. Protestants use this to say that there is no one who is righteous, but that is not what the Psalm is saying. Read the whole thing. The psalmist is speaking specifically about the wicked. He speaks of the fool, who has said in his heart that there is no God. It speaks of the workers of iniquity in verse 4. Then in verse 5, it speaks of the "generation of the righteous."

The righteousness that mankind does not have is that which was necessary to be the Last Adam and restore mankind by a life of obedience and the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even those who were pleasing to God in the OT couldn't go to heaven until Christ Jesus did that work and released the shackles and bondage of mankind by the Cross. But to say that none can please God and that none are righteous contradicts Scripture.

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Also, this:

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wifewas of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

I'm sorry, but there goes total depravity down the drain. You have to take the entire Scripture and not just bits and pieces which support your theology.

I do agree with your first statement in the bare salvific sense, i.e., that no one can save himself or make covenant with God on behalf of mankind. We are not of that required righteousness which would save either us or others. But Scripture shows people who while under the Adamic separation of sin, still are described as righteous and pleasing to God.

 

[Light of the East]

That is right, the son that went away, came back because he was a son of the Father.
The children of Satan draw back from the light and will not come to the light that their evil deeds be exposed, but everyone who comes to the light show that their deeds are wrought in God.
Wrought in God means that God was working in their life for their good, all things were together for good for those who are called according to his purposes. You can not say the same about all the people of the world since obviously some remain children of Satan. Give up your human understanding and lean on what the scriptures say.

JESUS said this
John 3
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Sticking with the analogy of family - Satan cannot have children. That is, ontologically, this is impossible. What is possible is that men and women make covenant with Satan by their actions and thus become "children" in the sense of making Satan their covenant head. But ontologically, the image of God, our Father and Father of all mankind remains, no matter how far afield the rebellious child strays.

 

[bleitzel]

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.

Excellent!

 

[bleitzel]

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.

Thank you Alex, and how you base your view is the right one. We should all base our view on our personal knowledge of God and the underlying truth of the heart and character of God as he has revealed it to us, just like you said. If we try to develop a system for understanding harder passages in scripture and that system leads us to conclusions that are far from the revealed heart and character of God then we should throw the system away and admit we must not understand the passages, not try to prop up this new system as correct.