Did Jesus assert that some OT laws weren't God's ideal

[janxharris]

But over the years, I've learned that debates are less meaningful than proceeding with the Mission--which is not under dispute. When all is said and done, there won't be any benefit to have argued a strong debate over the years...but there is benefit to have proceeded with the Mission.

Without explaining to unbelievers what Jesus really stands for then one can't deliver an ingenuous Gospel. It's no good telling all and sundry John 3:16 unless you tell them that God elected whom would believe (if that indeed is your understanding of Romans 9).

 

[RDKirk]

But that isn't the conclusion Paul reaches at the end of the chapter. Paul speaks of faith, not works, as being the key. He makes no mention of such faith being the preserve of a select few.

Why is Paul talking to the Romans about this at all?

Paul is talking to real people in a real congregation going through real life-stuff as a congregation.

Back around 41AD, the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. That included Jesus-believing Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla, who already had a mixed Jew-Gentile Christian congregation going in Rome (this expulsion is also why there were no Jews in Philippi when Paul visited that city). In 53AD, the new Emperor Nero permitted the Jews--including Priscilla and Aquilla--back into Rome. They went back to a congregation that had been all Gentile during their absence.

That is the setting for Paul's letter to them, a situation in which the Jews and Gentiles had to re-integrate into a cohesive congregation. That's why Paul speaks about the mechanism of salvation, first to the Jews so they understand the Gentiles are not second-class citizens, but have the same first-class ticket the Jews have because the ticket is not procedure or bloodline, but faith. Then later, Paul has to specifically address the Gentiles so that they understand they are not superior to the Jews, either.

The bottom line is that Paul is explaining to the Jews that by God's sovereign choice, He certainly can choose to bring Gentiles at that late date into the same salvation that the Jews have available, regardless of all the prior history He has with the Jews.

It's not Paul's point that God's sovereign choice can leave people out, Paul's point is that God's sovereign choice is to bring more people--the Gentiles--in.

 

[RDKirk]

Without explaining to unbelievers what Jesus really stands for then one can't deliver an ingenuous Gospel. It's no good telling all and sundry John 3:16 unless you tell them that God elected whom would believe (if that indeed is your understanding of Romans 9).

False.

Romans 9 is not necessary for a person to come to belief in Christ. Romans 9 is not written to unbelievers, Romans 9 is to believers.

 

[janxharris]

False.

Romans 9 is not necessary for a person to come to belief in Christ. Romans 9 is not written to unbelievers, Romans 9 is to believers.

It would be incumbent on a Calvinist to declare that not all persons he preaches to can necessarily come to Christ when the Gospel is preached.

Unbelievers should know what it is they are being enjoined to believe in.

 

[janxharris]

Why is Paul talking to the Romans about this at all?

Paul is talking to real people in a real congregation going through real life-stuff as a congregation.

Back around 41AD, the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. That included Jesus-believing Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla, who already had a mixed Jew-Gentile Christian congregation going in Rome (this expulsion is also why there were no Jews in Philippi when Paul visited that city). In 53AD, the new Emperor Nero permitted the Jews--including Priscilla and Aquilla--back into Rome. They went back to a congregation that had been all Gentile during their absence.

That is the setting for Paul's letter to them, a situation in which the Jews and Gentiles had to re-integrate into a cohesive congregation. That's why Paul speaks about the mechanism of salvation, first to the Jews so they understand the Gentiles are not second-class citizens, but have the same first-class ticket the Jews have because the ticket is not procedure or bloodline, but faith. Then later, Paul has to specifically address the Gentiles so that they understand they are not superior to the Jews, either.

The bottom line is that Paul is explaining to the Jews that by God's sovereign choice, He certainly can choose to bring Gentiles at that late date into the same salvation that the Jews have available, regardless of all the prior history He has with the Jews.

It's not Paul's point that God's sovereign choice can leave people out, Paul's point is that God's sovereign choice is to bring more people--the Gentiles--in.

Thanks - I had heard about the enforced exile.

Were Esau and Pharaoh without recourse to salvation because God predetermined that they would not be?

 

[janxharris]

False.

Romans 9 is not necessary for a person to come to belief in Christ. Romans 9 is not written to unbelievers, Romans 9 is to believers.

If I, as an unbeliever, am not certain about what it is I am being asked to believe in (whether God predetermines those that will have faith or makes salvation available to all) then I can't really exercise informed faith can I?

If I am being enjoined to believe in the Calvin God then, no, it's not for me.

 

[Hawkins]

That is an assertion that they didn't observe the law.

No. It also says that the Jews need to do whatever the Pharisees told them to do, that is, they need to observe the 613 laws.

 

[janxharris]

No. It also says that the Jews need to do whatever the Pharisees told them to do, that is, they need to observe the 613 laws.

But your assertion was that Jesus acknowledged that the Pharisees observed all 613. Jesus merely urges the Jews to do what they say and not what they do.

 

[Hawkins]

But your assertion was that Jesus acknowledged that the Pharisees observed all 613. Jesus merely urges the Jews to do what they say and not what they do.

I never said that. Just as the verse itself shows. The Pharisees preached but not observed. Jesus on the other hand asked the Jews in general to observe, unlike the Pharisees who only preached but not observed.

Romans 9 echos what Jesus said to a Jew that if he wants to enter life he needs to observe the commandments. If he wants to be perfect, then follow Christ.

 

[janxharris]

I never said that. Just as the verse itself shows. The Pharisees preached but not observed. Jesus on the other hand asked the Jews in general to observe, unlike the Pharisees who only preached but not observed.

Ok, but Jesus does not say anyone successfully observed the law. On the contrary...for all have sinned..........

 

[Hawkins]

Ok, but Jesus does not say anyone successfully observed the law. On the contrary...for all have sinned..........

It's generally true at the time of Jesus, with a few exception though. Paul can be that exception. However he sinned as a murderer of Christians.

As for how well a Jew can abide by the 613 laws, Moses will be the accuser. Again, just as Jesus said, even one perfectly observes the Mosaic law, he's not more perfect than following Jesus Christ.

 

[janxharris]

It's generally true at the time of Jesus, with a few exception though. Paul can be that exception. However he sinned as a murderer of Christians.

?

Apart from Jesus all have sinned - so nobody successfully observed the law.

 

[Hawkins]

?

Apart from Jesus all have sinned - so nobody successfully observed the law.

Not necessarily. Everyone is sinned against the absolute set of Law of God which is not the Mosaic Law.

It works like this,

God's absolute Law,
no humans can abide by except for Jesus. Thus everyone sinned without exception.

a Covenant granted to humans,
The righteous can abide by such that they can be saved.

That is, everyone sinned in terms of Law (the one broke by Adam and Satan). Yet one can be saved as long as he can abide by a covenant granted, say, by observing the 613 laws if he's a Jew.

 

[janxharris]

Yet one can be saved as long as he can abide by a covenant granted, say, by observing the 613 laws if he's a Jew.

Would you cite a scripture for this please?

Galatians 3:10ff.

 

[RDKirk]

It would be incumbent on a Calvinist to declare that not all persons he preaches to can necessarily come to Christ when the Gospel is preached.

Unbelievers should know what it is they are being enjoined to believe in.

All they need is the gospel contained in the Gospels. And that is the truth of "enabled by the Father."

All that concepts of "election" discussed by Paul do is provide some validation of the phenomenon, but the working of the phenomenon does not require explanation any more than the working of gravity requires explanation.

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks - I had heard about the enforced exile.

Were Esau and Pharaoh without recourse to salvation because God predetermined that they would not be?

I don't know, nor does it matter for evangelism.

 

[RDKirk]

If I, as an unbeliever, am not certain about what it is I am being asked to believe in (whether God predetermines those that will have faith or makes salvation available to all) then I can't really exercise informed faith can I?

I'm not sure there is any such thing as "informed faith." That is, IMO, merely "intellectual agreement," which is not faith at all.

It actually doesn't matter. It really doesn't.

How much of this did Cornelius know?

Or the Philippian jailer? Look carefully at that situation. Had the Philippian jailer gotten a thorough discourse of Romans 9 before declaring, "What must I do to be saved?"

What I'm pointing out is the very real phenomenon of "enabled by the Father," by which persons say, "What must I do to be saved" without first having all those extraneous theological issues resolved.

[quote[If I am being enjoined to believe in the Calvin God then, no, it's not for me.[/QUOTE]

He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." -- John 6

So if God does turn out to be "the Calvinist God," do you have another option?

 

[janxharris]

I don't know, nor does it matter for evangelism.

I am not a little astonished by this. You don't know and say that it doesn't matter? The doctrine (of the Calvinist) is clear - God chooses person A and not person B for reasons NOT based on whether they have done anything good or bad.

You are comfortable with such a God? That's quite a faith to have - that somehow, despite all that logic points to, you assume this God remains untainted?

That such a God does not consider this a huge elephant in the rooms so as to furnish us with an explanation is baffling.

So if God does turn out to be "the Calvinist God," do you have another option?

Why would I assume there is any truth to scripture when the elephant in the room (that the doctrines of grace may be inferred from the bible) is crying out for an explanation?

Does Jesus's death and resurrection and the hope that it offers override all such anomalies for you?

 

[janxharris]

I'm not sure there is any such thing as "informed faith." That is, IMO, merely "intellectual agreement," which is not faith at all.

It actually doesn't matter. It really doesn't.

How much of this did Cornelius know?

Or the Philippian jailer? Look carefully at that situation. Had the Philippian jailer gotten a thorough discourse of Romans 9 before declaring, "What must I do to be saved?"

What I'm pointing out is the very real phenomenon of "enabled by the Father," by which persons say, "What must I do to be saved" without first having all those extraneous theological issues resolved..

You're telling me not to be concerned about a God that does not, despite John 3:16, offer salvation to all?

Why would I put my faith in a book that contradicts itself and doesn't address the issue other than to say:

'But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”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?'

 

[janxharris]

So if God does turn out to be "the Calvinist God," do you have another option?

Without a clear resolution of the issues then the sceptic of the Calvinist God is right to remain sceptical.