Salvation and eternal destiny trilemma

Berean777

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Feb 12, 2014
3,283
586
✟14,509.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That has no bearing on Paul's argument. He states specifically that he is speaking of physical Jews.

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.
(Rom. 9:3-5 KJV)

He is specifically talking about the Jews, those who are the "physical" descendants of Israel who is Jacob.

Why only Jews who have converted to Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why was he talking specifically to the Jews.

I don't know if we can be certain as to why. I do think if we consider the historical setting and the issues that were taking place in Rome at the time along with the content of the letter we can get a pretty good idea. One of the things Paul dealt with in his ministry was that of the Jduaizers. These were Jews who told the Gentiles that in addition to faith they also had to keep the Law of Moses. If you read Acts 15 this is addressed and is the reason for the Jerusalem council. In the letter to the Roman church Paul explains to the Jews how a man is justified by faith and not the works of the Law. This suggests to me that this issue of the Judaizers was taking place in Rome. It would seem that some in the church were even saying this just as they did in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:5). This would explain why Paul lays out the plan of God showing how that it was not just to the Jews but also to the Gentiles and that it was not of works of the Mosaic Law but of faith.
 
Upvote 0

Berean777

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.
Feb 12, 2014
3,283
586
✟14,509.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't know if we can be certain as to why. I do think if we consider the historical setting and the issues that were taking place in Rome at the time along with the content of the letter we can get a pretty good idea. One of the things Paul dealt with in his ministry was that of the Jduaizers. These were Jews who told the Gentiles that in addition to faith they also had to keep the Law of Moses. If you read Acts 15 this is addressed and is the reason for the Jerusalem council. In the letter to the Roman church Paul explains to the Jews how a man is justified by faith and not the works of the Law. This suggests to me that this issue of the Judaizers was taking place in Rome. It would seem that some in the church were even saying this just as they did in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:5). This would explain why Paul lays out the plan of God showing how that it was not just to the Jews but also to the Gentiles and that it was not of works of the Mosaic Law but of faith.

I see, the apostle faced challenges from judazers that were counterproductive to the preaching of the gospel and in evangelizing the gentiles.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see, the apostle faced challenges from judazers that were counterproductive to the preaching of the gospel and in evangelizing the gentiles.

Yeah. In Acts 5 we find this.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:1-5 KJV)

Luke says that there people who came from Judea and taught the brethern that they had to keep the Law. In verse 5 we see that there some Pharisees in the church who believed that also said it was necessary for the Gentiles to keep the Law. If you read the rest of the chapter the disciples discuss this and with the help of the Holy Spirit determined that the Gentiles didn't have to keep the Law.

We also see this Galatians.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Gal. 3:1-2 KJV)

Paul asks the Galatians if they received the Spirit through the word of the Law or through Faith. It was also addressed in Ephesians. It would seem that this is also what Paul is dealing with in the letter to the Romans.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Both of these points can be knocked down with a single stone:

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." [Romans 9:3-8]​

Christians, as children of the promise, are counted as members of Israel.
You actually made my point for me - hence Israel is made up of both Jews and Gentiles as Romans 9:8 clearly states. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Whoops, didn't read your denomination. Sorry, brother, we're on the same side.
No worries. I think Paul is clearly talking to Israel - its just that in his mind it appears that at this point in the book he is pointing out that true Israel is made up of both Jews and Gentiles (those who are called) - particularly when he quotes from Hosea at the end of chapter 9.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No worries. I think Paul is clearly talking to Israel - its just that in his mind it appears that at this point in the book he is pointing out that true Israel is made up of both Jews and Gentiles (those who are called) - particularly when he quotes from Hosea at the end of chapter 9.

I have written a rather long explanation of Romans 9, but bottom line (Rm 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!...) God is totally fair and as just as any being could be. Paul is for the rest of Romans 9-11 explaining how God is just/fair even when it seems to humans God is not being just/fair.

But which human beings that Paul is very specifically addressing would have any feelings of God being unfair?

First who is Paul talking to “Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome during the first century” prior to, most likely, any apostle going to Rome.

Do you see how; a first century pagan gentile, that became a Christian, might perceived “injustice” in God’s preparing them from birth, as compared to highly moral well bible versed first century Jews that became Christians?

This Jew gentile conflict between Christians is a huge part of the Roman letter.


The bottom line (as we might all agree) is it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both had a hard time accepting God’s charity and new way of living.

As far as Romans 9 this is what I have written as an introduction before:


Verses are pulled out of Romans 9 to support the idea God makes people a particular way so He will save them and makes others a particular way so they will be eternally lost. That is not what is being conveyed by these particular verses.


To best interpret any verse good hermeneutics would have you first understand the context, context, context and context. Who is writing, to whom is he writing, why, where, when is he writing. The questions for Romans 9 would include:



Paul uses two teaching methods taught in secular philosophy classes and Romans is 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!

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with being considered the special group with a special purpose from their birth or would it be the Gentile Christians that saw themselves like Esau and Ismael?


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 (this “letter” is not being written to non-Christians)?


Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or 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?

The Gentiles might have felt like second class children of God compared to the “chosen” Jews, but Paul spends lots of words in Ro. 9-11 saying that even though the Jews were made for a special purpose, lots of them remain lost, so it is really no better being a Jew prior to conversion.

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.


We could get into a long discussion of “ honorable and dishonorable vessels” which some equate the dishonorable as being like “clay pigeons” made for destruction, but that is not the best translation of these words. Paul uses the same words conveying the same idea in 2 Tim. 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.


In Tim. Paul talks about these same “dishonorable vessels” in a rich person’s house (definitely not clay pigeons) and these dishonorable vessels (common vessels) can be made “holy” (which fits the Gentiles being made holy).

All clay vessels become damaged over time and fit for destruction, but that is not the way the potter made them.

The Potter has to remake the honorable (special purpose) or dishonorable (common objective) vessels that have become damaged as only God the Potter can.

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.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Bible teaches that 1 God wants to save everyone, 2 that he can do anything, and 3 that eternal punishment awaits those who persist in wickedness instead of accepting salvation.
There is some tension between these points, which Christians have tried to solve in three ways.
Please explain why one would feel any tension between any of these points. There is no tension unless one assumes more than these 3 points are involved.

1. Weaken the third; universalism--God will eventually save everyone. The Greek word for eternal is where we get our word 'eon' which is how long it'll take for some of the worst to be saved.
2. Weaken the second; Arminianism--perhaps its not logically possible for God to save everyone, since it depends on wills, and it is by definition impossible to force someone to freely will something.
3. Weaken the first; Calvinism-- God doesn't want to save everyone as much as he wants to demonstrate his justice or otherwise glorify himself.

This is the order of their appeal to me, and also the order of how much they glorify God. Sending people to hell doesn't make God look good any more than smushing an ant that crosses the sidewalk makes a grown man look strong.
God is always glorified whenever any of His attributes are displayed. In this case, His attribute of divine perfection, holiness and justice are displayed when ever anyone rejects His free gift of eternal life.

Universalism does glorify God: the amount of love, patience, and wisdom he would display in saving everyone over the span of ages is wonderful. As a Molinist, I'm not convinced of #2, though it seems to be what kept C S Lewis from being a universalist. It is possible that universalism is too close to making this a 'toy world' where our choices' consequences are limited and thus lack as much significance. A world of greatest significance might bring more glory to God and value to us, but I doubt it; an eon of consequences for our choices seems enough. Anyway I trust God will do what is best.
Scripture refutes universalism, so that idea cannot glorify God. If God doesn't keep His promise of eternal life to those who believe in His Son, He is a liar. How does that glorify God?

#3 is wrong regarding Calvinism because there is no evidence from Scripture to support it. God's desire IS that everyone come to repentance ( Acts 17:31), and that He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4).

It is clear from Scripture that He glorifies Himself in whatever He does.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
#3 is wrong regarding Calvinism because there is no evidence from Scripture to support it. God's desire IS that everyone come to repentance ( Acts 17:31), and that He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4).

It is clear from Scripture that He glorifies Himself in whatever He does.

I am not connecting Acts 17:31 with the statement "God's desire IS that everyone come to repentance." Did you reference the right verse?
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I am not connecting Acts 17:31 with the statement "God's desire IS that everyone come to repentance." Did you reference the right verse?
Of course not. I meant 2 Pet 3:9. Don't get old. But I don't remember why.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Of course not. I meant 2 Pet 3:9. Don't get old. But I don't remember why.

Age is just a number. Old is a state of mind.

By that measure, there are people half my age who are older than me,

and conversely there are people 10 years or more my senior who are younger than I.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Age is just a number. Old is a state of mind.

By that measure, there are people half my age who are older than me,

and conversely there are people 10 years or more my senior who are younger than I.
:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Please explain why one would feel any tension between any of these points. There is no tension unless one assumes more than these 3 points are involved.


God is always glorified whenever any of His attributes are displayed. In this case, His attribute of divine perfection, holiness and justice are displayed when ever anyone rejects His free gift of eternal life.


Scripture refutes universalism, so that idea cannot glorify God. If God doesn't keep His promise of eternal life to those who believe in His Son, He is a liar. How does that glorify God?

#3 is wrong regarding Calvinism because there is no evidence from Scripture to support it. God's desire IS that everyone come to repentance ( Acts 17:31), and that He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4).

It is clear from Scripture that He glorifies Himself in whatever He does.
It is odd that you see no tension between God wanting to save everyone and not everyone being saved. Does it glorify God to not get what he wants? I'm not saying universalism is the best solution, only that the issue is complex.
God is glorified in everything he does because everything he does is best. If anything God could possibly do would glorify him equally, that makes the statement that he is glorified, as well as all human action, meaningless.
Note that universalism leaves ample room for God to display his justice and ample punishment for sinners. An eon of hell is still a pretty big punishment, even if at the end of it everyone repents and is saved. I grant that many modern universalists err very much on the side of a warm fuzzy God rather than a great just one, but I do not see that error as being essential to universalism. Still, I grant that the Scripture does not support universalism; there's one verse that does seem to against about three that appear pretty clearly to deny it. I believe Scripture indicates that between death and the final judgment there is opportunity to repent and be saved, but after the judgment those remaining unrepentant are dealt with in a way that combines destruction and eternal torment; exactly what that looks like we don't know.
 
Upvote 0