Romans 9 Is Not About Predestination!

Steve97 · Jan 2, 2020

Clete said:
When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thank you. This is one reason why I am not a reformed Baptist.

CharismaticLady · Jan 2, 2020

bling said:
I am very much reading it in context especially of the issue Paul is addressing with the Jews and gentile Christians in Rome "problem".
The answer being specifically: Rm 10: 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
it is not dealing with the "nation of Israel", but with the individual Jewish and gentile Christians.
Paul is always talking about changing individuals and does the very best communicating of the problem and the answer.

Historically, what was the problem? Did they think there is a Jewish church and a Gentile church? Or is there one Church?

bling · Jan 2, 2020

CharismaticLady said:
Historically, what was the problem? Did they think there is a Jewish church and a Gentile church? Or is there one Church?

The Jewish Christian Church was probable established by Roman Jews converted on and after Pentecost (pilgrimage Jews often stayed from Passover to Pentecost) left on or before the stoning of Steven, they would not be aware of the Gospel being preached to Gentiles who did not also convert to Judaism. There were several Roman persecutions of Jews and Jewish Christians like Priscilla and Aquila would have travel to other regions where Gentiles were converted and learned from Paul's teaching and returned to Rome after the persecution stopped teach now Gentiles. from Romans we know the Jewish Christians were telling the Gentiles they must be circumcised, keep the Sabbaths, and keep the dietary requirements. Paul addresses all three in Romans.
The Jewish Christians had a leg up on the Gentiles, because they were already God's people and followed at least these three parts of the Law (they could also all read, had the OT available to them, had a strong morals). The gentiles understood they had been common vessels and the Jews were made at birth for a special purpose.

Clete · Jan 2, 2020

Al Touthentop said:
I personally don't think that there is any difference in "fulfilled the scripture" and "fulfilled prophecy."

How could there not be a difference? Of course there's a difference. There is no predictive prophesy that Judas fulfilled - period. If Judas had not betrayed Christ you wouldn't even be aware of Psalms 109:8 which is the passage that he fulfilled. I mean, you'd know that there was an eighth verse in Psalms 109 but you would recognize it as a prophesy because it isn't one. There's a whole list of passages that Jesus and others fulfilled that are not actual prophesies in the sense that there was a prophet making a prediction of the future. There is just simply no doubt about it, there is a very definite difference between a predictive prophesy and something that happens that parallels (i.e. fulfills) a passage of scripture.

Whether he fulfilled prophecy or not, he didn't have to fulfill it, prophecy is based on God's foreknowledge of events, not his causing of those events.

I completely agree with this except the part where you say that prophecy is based on God's foreknowledge. That's a common doctrine but it is not biblical. God can predict the future because He is wiser and more powerful than anyone can imagine and is thereby able to bring something to pass that He wants to bring to pass, not because He snuck a peak into the future. Even at that, however, you are quite right, even if Judas' actions had been specifically predicted as prophesy, he would not have had to fulfill it. Likewise, Peter could have repented before denying Christ that third time and had he done so, it wouldn't have broken God or upset Jesus. It would have been a really good thing that would have astonished Jesus. It certainly would have bothered the Calvinists, but not Jesus.

I think we also have to consider the language Paul and Moses used when writing that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart." It seems to read as if God caused this hardening. And that's why so many Calvinists want to interpret this as applying everywhere. We're all just autonomous robots of God for good or evil.

God did cause it but not in the way the Calvinist believe. They think that God sprinkled some sort of hardening agent on Pharaoah's heart or something. All God did was perform undeniable physical miracles that proved the He was God and that Pharoah was not, then as the scripture plainly says, Pharoah hardened his own heart. (Exodus 8:15 & 32; Exodus 9:32; I Samual 6:6)

But, that's not what is meant. Pharaoh took offense at God's words, he wasn't caused by God to disobey. The whole idea that Pharaoh had to disobey God is based on a lack of critical thinking on the part of certain readers. The Glory of God would have been just as great had Pharaoh succumbed immediately. He would have accomplished the task of delivering the Israelites out of Egypt either way. That he delivered them from Egypt in spite of Pharaoh's disobedience is just further demonstration of his power.

This is a brilliant point! The Calvinists act as if God needs evil to happen in order to be glorified.

God made note of Judas' disobedience because it was proof of his foreknowledge, just as the prophecy about casting lots was recorded. He could have left off those details but it was those details that proved he was as omniscient as is proposed by Moses in Genesis.

I do not agree with this at all. If none of the things you reference here had happened it would not have created any issues of unfulfilled prophesy. It isn't about God foreknowing anything and these things would prove foreknowledge anyway. It is just as easy to explain the fulfilled scripture by acknowledging that God was orchestrating these events so as to fulfill certain passages of scripture. I suspect that if events had unfolded differently, there would have been other passages that God could have pointed to as having been fulfilled.

Sometimes people read the bible as if it was written yesterday and in English.

Boy! You said a mouthful there! So true!

I hope that my words do not read as if I'm criticizing you.

No! I didn't read them as being person in any way. We're here to discuss doctrine and if everyone always agreed on every point then this would a really boring website!

I consider Calvinism to be blasphemy against God.

Calvinism is blasphemy. It isn't a matter of opinion.

It declares that God practices the standards of justice that only men propose and then tells any rational person who sees their proposals as patently unjust, that God's ways can't be understood by man. He has to just accept that God can void his own instructions because he has supreme sovereignty.

"Antinomy" or "mystery" is what they call it when such things come up. Any time you see a Calvinist resort to this tactic you should thank them for having conceded the debate because there can be no debate once this tactic is employed. They see and accept that their doctrine cannot be reconciled with sound reason but instead of accepting this as proof that their doctrine is false, remove sound reason from the equation and thereby remove the ability to falsify any doctrine whatsoever. They effectively cut off their nose to spite their face and then think themselves pious for doing so willingly.

Clete · Jan 2, 2020

Peter John said:
I am not a calvinist, but do believe in predestination, & no freewill. If you don't you could do what your President Thomas Jefferson did, & carefully cut out verses you don't agree with, & make your own bible, & go against God saying in Rev22v18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I don't understand this argument. You say that if we had free will would could do something that someone actually did do. Doesn't the fact that the Jefferson bible exists sort of defeat the argument you just made?

I gotta be missing something.

Although predestination is only mentioned 8 times in the new testament, it runs throughout. Israel was & is the apple of God's eye, His elect sheep, spiritual Israel. I am not Jewish, but I am part of spiritual Israel (elect church), made up of individuals that God has chosen, around the world. Jn15v16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you".

John 15:16 is Jesus speaking specifically to his disciples. It is not intended to be taken as a statement about everyone who has or will ever believe. This is a great example of what it means to take a passage out of context. Context is everything!

As for predestination throughout the scripture, I agree with you, it is indeed a concept that is in no way foreign to the bible but it is always about corporate groups of people not individuals. The exception being Christ Himself but that hardly counts because He is the same God that predestined whatever else has been predestined. So groups such as the Nation of Israel and the Body of Christ have very specific predictive prophesies concerning them that God absolutely will bring to pass (Those are two quite separate groups, by the way. You're a member of the later, not the former. The former has been cut off. No one can get to God through Israel right now. Eventually God will graft Israel back in and restart their whole program but for now, its the Body of Christ or nothing). Those in the Body will be glorified - period. There is nothing that can stop it and it not conditional on anything other than God's own will and power. It is as predestined as anything could possibly be and it will happen. Just who will become members of the Body, however, is not predestined in any way. If one chooses to repent and accept the gift of salvation then they'll be a member and if they don't they won't.

Clete

Clete · Jan 2, 2020

Jesus is YHWH said:
Let’s stick with scripture rather than unbiblical analogies. The bible teaches that Judas was the son of perdition from the beginning. He was created for
the very purpose and role as the traitor who would betray Jesus. Jesus
said of Judas it would of been better off for him to not even been born
than to betray the Son of Man.
John 6:63-65
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 Yet
there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from
the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray
Him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can
come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

John 6:70-71
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of
you is a devil!" 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who,
though one of the Twelve, was later to betray Him.)

John 12:4-6
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray Him,
objected, 5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the
poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6 He did not say this because he
cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the
money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

John 13:10-11
10 Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash
his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every
one of you." 11 For He knew who was going to betray Him, and that
was why He said not every one was clean.

John 17:12
12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by
that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed
to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Matt 26:23-25
23 Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with
me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about
him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I,
Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."

Acts 1:16-19
16 and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy
Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas,
who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 he was one of
our number and shared in this ministry."
18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field;
there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled
out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that
field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Acts 1:24-26
Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this
apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26 Then
they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the
eleven apostles.

Ps 109:4-8
In return for my friendship they accuse me,
but I am a man of prayer.
5 They repay me evil for good,
and hatred for my friendship.
6 Appoint an evil man to oppose him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
7 When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.
8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

I can also show that Paul was predestined / elect like the rest of the Apostles.

hope this helps !!!

I appreciate your efforts but nothing you've quoted here contradicts a word I've said.
It seems you are reading your doctrine into the text. For example, Jesus knew from the beginning of his ministry that Judas would betray Him, not from the beginning of time. Indeed, God may well have been grooming Judas for this role for most of his life. But that doesn't mean that it had to be Judas. Judas could have lived an entirely different sort of life and been a very righteous man who loved God as much as anyone. Had that been the case then God would not have been defeted, He would simply have found someone else to fulfill that role in which case we'd be talking about a guy named Josephus or Asher or Nathan or whatever.
More than that Judas himself could have repented before going through with his betrayal. And, once again, had he done so it wouldn't have broken God or defeted the plan of savlation or even upset Jesus for that matter. Jesus would have been elated! God loves it when evil people repent, right? Had Judas done so, then God would still managed to accomplished what needed done, He just would have used someone else to do it. Trust me, there would have been no shortage of people God could have used to get the same end result. The only difference would have been that Psalms 108:8 wouldn't be the famous passage that it is today. Perhaps it would have been a different passage that God fulfilled instead.

Clete

Clete · Jan 2, 2020

CharismaticLady said:
What do you believe "predestined" in Ephesians 1 means, and who is Paul speaking of?

Paul is speaking about the Body of Christ which has been predestined to glory. Those who are in the Body will be glorified - period. There is no conditional statement, no caviot, no anything that prevent, alter, delay or prevent it's occurance. It is going to happen because God has predestined that it will - period.

And I do mean predestined as in predetermined before creation, not before time began because there is no such thing and not a few days, weeks or years in advance but before anything other than God Himself existed.

Kilk1 · Jan 2, 2020

Clete said:
When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Wow! This happens to look a lot like the approach I'd take to Romans 9 if I were debating against Calvinism. Looking at the beginning and the end of the chapter, combined with going to the passages that Paul references (or, in the case of Jeremiah 18, alludes to) is the proper way to understand it. While the chapter has some connection to predestination, as Paul was discussing it just a few verses before Romans 9 begins (see Romans 8:28-30), the focus of Romans 9 is clearly about Israel as it relates to the Gentiles, including distinctions between physical Israel and spiritual Israel.

CharismaticLady · Jan 2, 2020

Clete said:
Paul is speaking about the Body of Christ which has been predestined to glory. Those who are in the Body will be glorified - period. There is no conditional statement, no caviot, no anything that prevent, alter, delay or prevent it's occurance. It is going to happen because God has predestined that it will - period.

And I do mean predestined as in predetermined before creation, not before time began because there is no such thing and not a few days, weeks or years in advance but before anything other than God Himself existed.

That's what I always thought it meant, until I read it slowly, in context. There was a distinction in verse 13 that the Ephesians joined those who had been predestined, not that they were also predestined. themselves.

Clete · Jan 2, 2020

bling said:
Hi Clete,

I fully agree that Romans 9 is not talking about predestining a person or nation to salvation, but do not agree with the “idea” this is talking about only the Jewish nation.

As you say we must be consistent and take everything in context, but we need to start with the context of the entire letter:

This is not written to nonbelieving Jews in Rome since they would not even read a letter from Paul, but was written to Gentile and Jewish Christians in Rome with the huge issue of not fellowshipping each other (individually).

Paul did not establish the Church in Rome but from the list of the people he knows in Rome and the person taking the letter back to Rome suggest he is will known and respected as a evangelist to the Gentiles and as a learned Jew to the Jews.

Paul is the very best person to address the un-fellowshipping issue in Rome, but Paul will have to use the very best logic to since he does not have a deep personal relation with the Jewish or Gentile Christians.

Besides seeing how Ro. 9 fits into all of Romans we also need to Look at Ro. 9-11 since they go together in one theme, but again it is all directed at the one huge issue.

There is an urgency to resolving the issue, since both the Jewish and Gentile Christians will soon be under severe persecution and most will flee Rome (hopefully together).

Why it is referring to individuals and not nations is supported by the following:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

And

Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,

only the remnant will be saved.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Is individualistic.

Paul starts in verse 6 saying “not all who are descended…” which would apply to an individual. Then Paul gives allegory verse 9-18, using only individual people, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses and Pharaoh. Paul than says “one of you…” and this same one of you also asks: “Who is able… and “why do you make me…”

Those are not nations, but individuals.

I do agree Jacob and Esau in the quote “Jacob I love and Esau I hate” is most likely referring to nations, but the Jews would use that phrase to put Gentiles down and the Gentile Christians might have already heard it “said” of them.

The main idea Paul is getting across in Ro.9-11 is this:

How are Jews and Gentiles equal in salvation and living the Christian life? Rm 10: 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Also, Paul is using the Potter and Clay analogy very differently then Jerimiah analogy with the potter in Jer.18. Jerimiah is talking about the process of molding the clay while it is still very pliable and in the potter’s hands, while Paul is talking about the completed vessel with the Potters mark on it leaving the shop.

Here is a brief explanation of Ro.9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans 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 most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. 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 topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe 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, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

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?

This is the 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?”

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

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” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. 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, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

There is entirely too much here to respond to in detail but I basically came away from this with "How does any of this refute my premise?"
Of course Paul talks about a lot of other things throughout the book of Romans. Romans is the single greatest theological treatise in all of existence but that doesn't change the fact that in chapter nine, Paul is specifically discussing the fact that the nation of Israel was corporately cut off and why that happened and why God is justified is having done it. He goes on in chapter 11 to point out that it wasn't the believing Jews that were cut off but just the nation as a whole. The whole program God had with Israel and how people had to come to Him through Israel was ended and God turned instead to the Gentiles with a program of Grace rather than of Law. That's Paul's entire ministry in a nutshell, right? But Romans 9 is the point in Paul's narrative where he discusses Israel being cut off and it has exactly nothing to do with predestination as the Calvinists would have us believe and, as I said, I don't see how what you clearly spent a great deal of time saying, contradicts that.

Clete

Clete · Jan 2, 2020

CharismaticLady said:
That's what I always thought it meant, until I read it slowly, in context. There was a distinction in verse 13 that the Ephesians joined those who had been predestined, not that they were also predestined. themselves.

You're going to have to flesh that out a bit more. I don't follow what you're getting at.

CharismaticLady · Jan 2, 2020

Clete said:
You're going to have to flesh that out a bit more. I don't follow what you're getting at.

Go back to the beginning and read my first post to you. Only Israel is predestined and I agreed with your post #1. But you didn't mention that Ephesians one confirms that, yes, Israel was predestined, and out of Israel the apostles were predestined as well.

You answered me too quickly to have read Ephesians slowly in the Spirit as I did to see it. The key to the Ephesians not being predestined is they later believed. Israel is the natural olive tree - the elect - God's chosen people, not the Gentiles. We were grafted into it, just like the Ephesians are.

zoidar · Jan 2, 2020

Clete said:
... Not to say the predictive prophesies always come to pass, they don't ...

What prophesies in the Bible didn't come to pass?

bling · Jan 2, 2020

Clete said:
There is entirely too much here to respond to in detail but I basically came away from this with "How does any of this refute my premise?"
Of course Paul talks about a lot of other things throughout the book of Romans. Romans is the single greatest theological treatise in all of existence but that doesn't change the fact that in chapter nine, Paul is specifically discussing the fact that the nation of Israel was corporately cut off and why that happened and why God is justified is having done it. He goes on in chapter 11 to point out that it wasn't the believing Jews that were cut off but just the nation as a whole. The whole program God had with Israel and how people had to come to Him through Israel was ended and God turned instead to the Gentiles with a program of Grace rather than of Law. That's Paul's entire ministry in a nutshell, right? But Romans 9 is the point in Paul's narrative where he discusses Israel being cut off and it has exactly nothing to do with predestination as the Calvinists would have us believe and, as I said, I don't see how what you clearly spent a great deal of time saying, contradicts that.

Clete

This is a huge topic and I can say much more.

We do differ, but not in your conclusion about predestination:

You said: "The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel." and "Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles..."
There are lots of Jewish Christians at this time and more to come.

Yes, Gentile are being converted without becoming Jews and this would especially upset the Jewish Christians in Rome who seem to want the gentiles to become Jewish proselyte Christians.

Paul knew Isaiah 10: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.” And Paul was called to go to the gentiles, but always sought out the Jews first.

Do you feel God just then “cut off trying to convert the Jews” and went to a plan “B”?

Paul says: Ro. 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, so how and why would God change His preference?

Paul tells us: I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

And Ro. 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

And Ro. 11: 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

And Ro.11:32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

There are lots of Jews who disbelieve and have been cut off and lots of gentile who now believe have been grafted in, but those Jews cut off for now can be grafted back in, some after the destruction of Jerusalem will turn.

Looking at: “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?”, so tell me who was made by God and left the shop with God’s mark on them (born for a special purpose) and who left the shop with God’s mark on the (born for more a common use)?

Paul uses the exact same words 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.

Paul is saying even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

The Potter did not make clay pigeons, but special or common vessels, can become cracked and leak (worthless) and at that point the Potter would want them destroyed (they have His mark on them), but that is not the Potter’s fault.

What Paul is trying to get across to individual Roman Jewish and gentile Christians, is they are in the equally similar situation even if they leave the shop different (born with different purposes).

Al Touthentop · Jan 2, 2020

Clete said:
I do not agree with this at all. If none of the things you reference here had happened it would not have created any issues of unfulfilled prophesy.

Ok, well this is just you and I bandying about opinions but, I do think that unfilfilled prophecy would be a problem.

God told us we should never fear a prophet whose prophesies didn't come true.

Deuteronomy 18:22
You may ask in your heart, “How can we recognize a message that the LORD has not spoken?” 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Somehow God foreknew that an office would require a replacement. We may not recognize it as prophecy but it is nonetheless. Another weird one is the one in John 2 where when Jesus is taking out the merchants it is said that the prophecy was fulfilled.

His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for Your house will consume Me.”

When you read that Psalm, it gives no indication that it is a foretelling of that event. In fact the preceding and following verses seem to be told in the first person about David himself. But John says that it was fulfilled here. And later Peter tells us that prophecy is "of no private interpretation."

In other words, even the prophets didn't know what they were saying oft times because the Holy Spirit was guiding their words. There's a great example of this with Peter himself. When he preached on the day of Pentecost, he told the Jews there that the gift of the Holy Spirit (salvation) was promised to those "afar off" - Gentiles. But he himself didn't get it until the Angel sent him to Cornelius. It was only after Cornelius' family started speaking in tongues that he had his 'aha' moment (proving that tongues truly were a sign for unbelievers - Peter in this case).

So in the New Testament we're told by the recorders of the fulfilling events "look here! It is in this time and place when this prophecy is fulfilled." And again they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

If God is omniscient, he can certainly look into the future and see what is going to happen. Foretelling a thing is not the same as causing it to happen. He knew he would cause Mary to become pregnant. He knew that Jesus would perfectly obey him and he knew exactly how people were going to react and who would obey and who would disobey. None of this knowledge means that he directed any of the actors. Even Jesus had free will but he submitted his will completely to God's.

But, I'm trying to wrap my head around what you say when you say the prophecies aren't related to God's foreknowledge. I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean?

Al Touthentop · Jan 2, 2020

bling said:
Looking at: “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?”, so tell me who was made by God and left the shop with God’s mark on them (born for a special purpose) and who left the shop with God’s mark on the (born for more a common use)?

Paul is saying even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

I believe you are spot on here. It's a hard phrase to look at and not immediately come to the conclusion that God created the articles beforehand for a specific individual and predestined purpose (to sin or to be righteous). The reason it's hard for us is that in our modern way of speaking it isn't the way we might put it. The people back in Paul's time who were Greek speakers and readers, would have understood exactly what he meant.

But you add a nuance here that I hadn't seen before when reading it, showing that the context is even more specific to Jews and Gentiles. Thanks.

Peter John · Jan 2, 2020

CharismaticLady said:
Jesus died for the whole world, but not all of the world will remain and not be lopped off because they did not keep the commands of Jesus.

Partial truths taking one verse out of the context of the whole like you have done produces heresies. Two heresies in the Church are Universalism and OSAS.

Yeshua died for the church, not the world. Eph5v25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.
Jn3v16 says God SO (in a particular fashion) loved the world (kosmos- orderly arrangement), & the 'whoever' is 'pas o'- the all (not everyone, the believing all). I am in the world, but I'm not of the world.
You are going against scripture, saying OSAS is heresy. If God predestines us, then we will conform to the likeness of Christ, over a lifetime of being saved. What is a heresy is those who think they can GET saved, one day. They are the 'freewillers' who follow the false gospel.

Al Touthentop · Jan 3, 2020

Peter John said:
Yeshua died for the church, not the world. Eph5v25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.
Jn3v16 says God SO (in a particular fashion) loved the world (kosmos- orderly arrangement), & the 'whoever' is 'pas o'- the all (not everyone, the believing all). I am in the world, but I'm not of the world.
You are going against scripture, saying OSAS is heresy. If God predestines us, then we will conform to the likeness of Christ, over a lifetime of being saved. What is a heresy is those who think they can GET saved, one day. They are the 'freewillers' who follow the false gospel.

We can't though throw out John 3:16 where it says so loved the world etc etc. I really don't like pitting one scripture against another. We also don't have to call each other names or frame this in terms of heresy. It just hardens people hearts to stay stuff like that.

Paul wrote that he didn't consider himself, an apostle, to have obtained the ultimate salvation of resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3). Why would we then try and preach some sort of permanent assurance that he never believed himself?

Now he did say that those baptized should be assured that there is 'therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ' (which he taught in the previous two chapters was a result of their baptism). But, he also warned against sinning. He said that there were NO sinners, including ones who were in Christ, who would inherit the kingdom of God. He taught in almost every letter that sin was forbidden. And if Paul believed that Christians had now been made animated automatrons predestined to make it to heaven and incapable of sinning, everything he wrote about sin was totally unnecessary. Weird that the Holy Spirit would lead him to preach such things if in fact OSAS or limited atonement were the truth.

Did he die for the world?

In John 3:16 - the subjunctive mood (may not perish, might have eternal life) lets us know that salvation is available to the whole world if only the whole world would believe and exercise their right to become children of God (John 1:12).

And I absolutely love that Eph passage because it makes it so clear that baptism was very important to Jesus.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Peter John · Jan 3, 2020

Al Touthentop said:
We can't though throw out John 3:16 where it says so loved the world etc etc. I really don't like pitting one scripture against another. We also don't have to call each other names or frame this in terms of heresy. It just hardens people hearts to stay stuff like that.

Paul wrote that he didn't consider himself, an apostle, to have obtained the ultimate salvation of resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3). Why would we then try and preach some sort of permanent assurance that he never believed himself?

Now he did say that those baptized should be assured that there is 'therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ' (which he taught in the previous two chapters was a result of their baptism). But, he also warned against sinning. He said that there were NO sinners, including ones who were in Christ, who would inherit the kingdom of God. He taught in almost every letter that sin was forbidden. And if Paul believed that Christians had now been made animated automatrons predestined to make it to heaven and incapable of sinning, everything he wrote about sin was totally unnecessary. Weird that the Holy Spirit would lead him to preach such things if in fact OSAS or limited atonement were the truth.

Did he die for the world?

In John 3:16 - the subjunctive mood (may not perish, might have eternal life) lets us know that salvation is available to the whole world if only the whole world would believe and exercise their right to become children of God (John 1:12).

And I absolutely love that Eph passage because it makes it so clear that baptism was very important to Jesus.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

I am certainly not throwing 3v16 out, merely defining the words, from the greek, that gives the verse a concise meaning. As for 'calling each other names', where is that? we were 2 people expressing what we believe to be heretical!

Paul is talking about having no confidence in the flesh, as he said in 1Cor15v31 "I die daily" to self, as we are resurrected daily, to live by His Spirit.

Rom8v29 For whom He foreknew,He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Those who God has chosen are certainly not incapable of sinning, that is why we are being saved & conformed over our lifetime, to become Christlike.

It is 'the believing all', like I have said, otherwise it would have read 'God loved the world', but it was 'SO loved His orderly arrangement (His elect).

Just to be clear, the one baptism since Christ's death & resurrection, is blood not water.(not literally, of course) If you want me to define that too, I will be glad to.

Clete · Jan 3, 2020

CharismaticLady said:
Go back to the beginning and read my first post to you. Only Israel is predestined and I agreed with your post #1. But you didn't mention that Ephesians one confirms that, yes, Israel was predestined, and out of Israel the apostles were predestined as well.

Israel, as a nation might well have been predestined and the existence of twelve disciples may also have been predestined but which specific people would be either in the nation of Israel or in Jesus' inner circle was not. At least not in the sense that God knew who they would be from the foundation of the world. He may well have had them in mind for a long while before they became discples and perhaps as long as most of their lives but that isn't what anyone is talking about when they talk about predestination.

You answered me too quickly to have read Ephesians slowly in the Spirit as I did to see it. The key to the Ephesians not being predestined is they later believed. Israel is the natural olive tree - the elect - God's chosen people, not the Gentiles. We were grafted into it, just like the Ephesians are.

I've read Ephesians probably a hundred times it means what it says. What it does not say is that any individual person was ever predestined by God to be saved (or not) - period.

Biblical predestination is corporate in nature. Any time you read about it, it is talking about a group of people, not any specific individual. We can know this by simply acknowledging one universally accepted fact that God is just. God is not arbitrary and does not choose poeple to save or to condemn before they ever existed.

Clete

Romans 9 Is Not About Predestination!

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads