• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,843
6,569
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,052,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Romans 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?”



Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not 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 when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?



Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?



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 potter’s 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.

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.

Important to note is the fact: the dishonorable vessel can cleanse themselves and become vessels of honor.

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.
You speak as to ignorant folk, sloughing meanings and methods and changing nothing. Most of what you say there directly to the text, just as I expected, I agree with. It is your use of what you say there —that is, the supposed implications and inferences you draw— that are merely assertions, unproven still. I appreciate and even admire you going to all that trouble to say so little, except that you have to bend it to fit your narrative still.

I don't have the time to deal with the details. Take a look at them yourself. Here's just one: Yes, amazingly to me, you admit to the Jew-Gentile thing when it suits you. Diatribe there was indeed. And implications you missed, on purpose. The Diatribe involving the rhetorical, "Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God", is not a Jew-Gentile question EVEN IF IT IS DIRECTED AT THAT SUBJECT and written to one group. The whole huge context is dealt with here: "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

Why do you find yourself re-phrasing the Gospel into a new narrative? Because you can't bear the notion that God has the right to do as he will with what he made, and still be just?? If a person's will is at enmity (see the earlier chapter) with God, that person will choose according to that enmity, whether or not he supposes himself to be humbly accepting God's charity, even weeping in grateful submission and relief (for a time). Jew or Gentile.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,843
6,569
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,052,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Where do you find in scripture this "inheriting a sin nature"?
If you were so inclined, you could have done a google search. It's right there.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—"

Psalms 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

The list goes on, but that's enough.

Are you going to throw yourself against 2000 years of instruction and 6000 years of obvious fact? You would deny what Orthodoxy (settled doctrine) has taught all this time? Good luck with that!
Adam and Eve did not inherit a sin nature and yet with only one way to sin they sinned.
What does that have to do with it. That's illogical, backwards, to say that because they did not have a sin nature that sin does not necessary result from the sin nature. The fact that the sin nature renders the means of choice by one's enmity with God, does not mean that Adam should have chosen sin only because of his enmity with God.
We have knowledge of good and evil which gives us tons of ways to sin and really impossible for us not to sin, but that is not a change in our nature.
WHAAAaaaa???? Did I just hear you say "really impossible for us not to sin???"

It is a change in our nature from what Adam was at first. And that change is demonstrated all our lives, even in the "Old Man" within the regenerated. It will plague us til our deaths.
God can see prior to the birth of Esau and Jacob that He can work with Jacob better than He can work with Esau. You have to use Deity's definition of "Hate" since Jesus tells us we must hate our family. You are to and can both Love and hate the same person, with Love only wanting the best for them. How do you Love and hate your family at the same time. It certainly does not mean Esau went to hell.
I don't recall saying that Esau went to hell. But that is irrelevant. In debate terminology, a logical fallacy by the name of Red Herring.

You assert, but can't prove, that God, looking ahead, saw the two and decided which one was best. No! He MADE the two precisely as he did for the roles they would play as a means to Redemption. Or do you think Adam's sin was a mistake, a mere experiment for sort-of-omnipotent god, and this god had to revert to plan B? If you can't go by scripture, seeing as how you have to invent your own narrative for the Gospel, go by simple logic: God is First Cause, or he is not God. God is Omniscient. Even by your estimation —that is, even if he only knew the future— if everything that is, is a result of his creating, and he knew that those things would happen, then he INTENDED that they happen, for the sake of Redemption and his Glory. "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,843
6,569
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,052,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Jesus does not go against your free will desires and will not force you to go to heaven. Heaven is a place where the person has humble accepted pure undeserved charity, but hell is for those who have refused God's charity to the point they would never be willing to accept.
The criminal undeserving kidnapper could never deserve the ransom payment, but God/Christ are willing to make it available to him/her in hopes of allowing the child within them to enter the Kingdom.
Sophistry
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,843
6,569
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,052,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
But are they free will choices?
They are REAL choices. And they are so by God's establishing them. Otherwise, they would not even occur. "Free"? —not so much. "Responsible"? —for sure! They did choose!
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,843
6,569
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,052,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Man has an earthly objective which requires free will, so by saying man does not have "free will", you also eliminate the reason for humans to spend time here on earth (they have no objective). You can red my explanation to Romans 9 above.
It would seem to me that the assertion, "Man has an earthly objective which requires free will", should be proven before the logic of that statement, "by saying man does not have "free will", you also eliminate the reason for humans to spend time here on earth (they have no objective)" can come into play. I bet you can't do it, without assuming (once again) free will, in your calculations.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,843
6,569
70
Pennsylvania
✟1,052,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life"

May God, Mightily bless you and your loved ones, In Jesus's Name.
"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life."

And the Greek is even more specific: "Thus God loved the world, so that everyone believing in him should not perish, but should have everlasting life." (I.e. the subjunctive "so that .... should" there denoting "for the Purpose that" they not perish but have everlasting life.) No question about who or any iffy-ness as to who believes, but that all that do believe, by God's eternal purposes coming to pass, will have everlasting life. And no arguable "God loved the world so much that..." either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaplain Jim
Upvote 0

Chaplain Jim

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
660
924
69
Ohio
✟115,771.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life."

And the Greek is even more specific: "Thus God loved the world, so that everyone believing in him should not perish, but should have everlasting life." (I.e. the subjunctive "so that .... should" there denoting "for the Purpose that" they not perish but have everlasting life.) No question about who or any iffy-ness as to who believes, but that all that do believe, by God's eternal purposes coming to pass, will have everlasting life. And no arguable "God loved the world so much that..." either.
Amen and Amen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
17,242
1,962
✟1,102,852.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Another strawman argument. Nobody is saying God forces us to go to Heaven anymore than he forced us to be born the first time.

Your self-derived narrative of "humbly accepting pure undeserved charity" —even if it was accurate—is not what saves anyone. It is a result of him regenerating ("born again") us.
God is offering to all mature adults forgiveness/charity, so accept, yet most refuse.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
17,242
1,962
✟1,102,852.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
They aren't saved before God saves them; Their choices are often depraved,
I agree they are not saved until God saves them and most people reject undeserved charity as charity, but some do humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity for selfish reasons.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
17,242
1,962
✟1,102,852.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You speak as to ignorant folk, sloughing meanings and methods and changing nothing. Most of what you say there directly to the text, just as I expected, I agree with. It is your use of what you say there —that is, the supposed implications and inferences you draw— that are merely assertions, unproven still. I appreciate and even admire you going to all that trouble to say so little, except that you have to bend it to fit your narrative still.

I don't have the time to deal with the details. Take a look at them yourself. Here's just one: Yes, amazingly to me, you admit to the Jew-Gentile thing when it suits you. Diatribe there was indeed. And implications you missed, on purpose. The Diatribe involving the rhetorical, "Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God", is not a Jew-Gentile question EVEN IF IT IS DIRECTED AT THAT SUBJECT and written to one group. The whole huge context is dealt with here: "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

Why do you find yourself re-phrasing the Gospel into a new narrative? Because you can't bear the notion that God has the right to do as he will with what he made, and still be just?? If a person's will is at enmity (see the earlier chapter) with God, that person will choose according to that enmity, whether or not he supposes himself to be humbly accepting God's charity, even weeping in grateful submission and relief (for a time). Jew or Gentile.
You have to look and study the details. God in scripture and through Christ as an example defines "justice" which He also follows. The "who are you" is an imaginary man (gentile Christian) debating God in very pure diatribe style.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
17,242
1,962
✟1,102,852.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life."

And the Greek is even more specific: "Thus God loved the world, so that everyone believing in him should not perish, but should have everlasting life." (I.e. the subjunctive "so that .... should" there denoting "for the Purpose that" they not perish but have everlasting life.) No question about who or any iffy-ness as to who believes, but that all that do believe, by God's eternal purposes coming to pass, will have everlasting life. And no arguable "God loved the world so much that..." either.
Our part is thus to trust (believe) in God's Love.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
17,242
1,962
✟1,102,852.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It would seem to me that the assertion, "Man has an earthly objective which requires free will", should be proven before the logic of that statement, "by saying man does not have "free will", you also eliminate the reason for humans to spend time here on earth (they have no objective)" can come into play. I bet you can't do it, without assuming (once again) free will, in your calculations.
It has to do with the definition of Godly type Love, which books have been written on. Godly type Love is not instinctive type love since that would make it robotic.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
17,242
1,962
✟1,102,852.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
They are REAL choices. And they are so by God's establishing them. Otherwise, they would not even occur. "Free"? —not so much. "Responsible"? —for sure! They did choose!
They are so because God provides man with this miraculous free will ability to make them.
 
Upvote 0