SinnerInTheHands
Troubled Christian
Ok, don't worry about the Scriptures and the context.
You forgot to type the "I" after the comma.
Upvote
0
Ok, don't worry about the Scriptures and the context.
That's mature.You forgot to type the "I" after the comma.
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.
I'm not sure what you're asking.Why only Jews who have converted to Christ.
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.
I see, the apostle faced challenges from judazers that were counterproductive to the preaching of the gospel and in evangelizing the gentiles.
You actually made my point for me - hence Israel is made up of both Jews and Gentiles as Romans 9:8 clearly states. Thanks.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
#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.
Of course not. I meant 2 Pet 3:9. Don't get old. But I don't remember why.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.
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.
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.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.