Individual salvation is not the subject of Romans 9

[Johnnz]

Nonsense. Predetermination relies on exegesis within a philosophical framework that formed part of the intellectual world of that day. More recent exegesis questions that entire framework and its textual basis. The Reformation restored many great biblical truths, but at best it was only a partial reformation and restoration and as such some of its conclusions are now being seriously challenged. The ongoing debate over justification by faith between N T Wright and John Piper reflects those developments in biblical scholarship fro those who are familiar with their exchanges. But Tom Wright is just one of many who are challenging some long standing traditional teachings from a deep immersion in the biblical texts in the light of huge amount of additional resources that are available now.

John
NZ

 

[Arcoe]

Paul is talking about a precise number of those to be saved.

To be saved when? 2,000 years down the road? Paul says at the PRESENT TIME there is a remnant. The remnant were those who who were saved through belief at the time Paul was speaking, not somewhere down the road.

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

I will ask you what Paul asked, 'has God cast away His people?' Paul was talking about God's people at the time he was writing, not at some time in the future. Those of Paul's 'present-time' remnant were those who constituted the early church.

Just as God then reserved a precise number (seven thousand), so in Paul's time he had a remnant. A remnant is a precise number.

Do those of the remnant get saved during Paul's time, or somewhere in the future, such as, the tribulation?

 

[travelah]

It says that God "RESERVED" for HIMSELF seven thousand men that would not bow the knee to Baal. Likewise, He RESERVED a remnant in Paul's time.

He knows because He RESERVES them for Himself.

The text does not state that He knows them because He reserved them. You are reading your theology into the text. The remnant is reserved for a purpose. The remnant is not created from a reserve formed in God's mind.

 

[Clare73]

Paul was teaching Gentile Christians about the nature and sovereignty of God's election and using Malachi 1 to do so. Jacob and Esau represent nations, in Esau's case, Edom. Until you can demonstrate that Malachi 1 refers to individual election and that God actually hated the man Esau, the argument you present fails.

Your argument that Paul was talking about nations falls on Ro 9:11: "--in order that God's purpose in election might

stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' "

All God's electing is the same--by his sovereign choice in order that his purpose in electing might

stand--whether it be groups or individuals.

 

[travelah]

Your argument that Paul was talking about nations falls on Ro 9:11: "--in order that God's purpose in election might

stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' "

All God's electing is the same--by his sovereign choice in order that his purpose in electing might

stand--whether it be groups or individuals.

The argument falls on the full context of Ro 9:6-13, the last verse of which states:

“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Ro 9:13 AV)

To understand what Paul is stating in context, you have to turn to Malachi 1 and you will find that there is no individual election being discussed nor personal hatred of Esau. Esau represents Edom and Jacob, Israel.

 

[Clare73]

The argument falls on the full context of Ro 9:6-13, the last verse of which states:

“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Ro 9:13 AV)

To understand what Paul is stating in context, you have to turn to Malachi 1 and you will find that there is no individual election being discussed nor personal hatred of Esau. Esau represents Edom and Jacob, Israel.

And I say your argument falls on the full context of Ro 9:6-24, where v.12 states:

"She was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' " (Ge 25:23)

I say to understand what Paul is stating in context of 9:6-24, you have to turn to Ge 25:23, and you will find that it is election being discussed, and God's principle of election is the same, whether it be groups or individuals--it is by his sovereign choice only, that his purpose might stand in electing.

Ro 9 is likewise about God's prinicple in individual election, because there is only one principle for all his electing.

 

[Johnnz]

And I say your argument falls on the full context of Ro 9:6-24, where v.12 states:

"She was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' " (Ge 25:23)

I say to understand what Paul is stating in context of 9:6-24, you have to turn to Ge 25:23, and you will find that it is election being discussed, and God's principle of election is the same, whether it be groups or individuals--it is by his sovereign choice only, that his purpose might stand in electing.

Ro 9 is likewise about God's prinicple in individual election, because there is only one principle for all his electing.

Not at all. In any story there is a theme and some characters. In His story God has involved individuals in working out his grand designs. That does not imply individuals were predestined but rather they were involved as God saw fit.

John
NZ

 

[Jack Terrence]

The text does not state that He knows them because He reserved them. You are reading your theology into the text. The remnant is reserved for a purpose. The remnant is not created from a reserve formed in God's mind.

The text says nothing about God's omniscience. Yet you insert it into the text. It most CLEARLY says that God RESERVED for HIMSELF seven thousand men that would not bow the knee to Baal. This was a DEFINITIVE number.

As He RESERVED a remnant of a DEFINITIVE number then, so He RESERVED for HIMSELF a DEFINITIVE number in Paul's time.

It's clear! The problem is that YOU are disobedient!

 

[Jack Terrence]

To be saved when? 2,000 years down the road? Paul says at the PRESENT TIME there is a remnant. The remnant were those who who were saved through belief at the time Paul was speaking, not somewhere down the road.

This is what I said! Geez! Go back and read my post! But it was a DEFINITIVE number of INDIVIDUALS nevertheless.

I will ask you what Paul asked, 'has God cast away His people?' Paul was talking about God's people at the time he was writing, not at some time in the future. Those of Paul's 'present-time' remnant were those who constituted the early church.

Agreed. But it was still a DEFINITIVE number of INDIVIDUALS. That election is about INDIVIDUALS is denied in the op to this thread.

Do those of the remnant get saved during Paul's time, or somewhere in the future, such as, the tribulation?

I deny that the tribulation is future. But that is another subject. The point is that God has a DEFINITIVE number of elect INDIVIDUALS in all times.

As God had reserved for Himself exactly seven thousand INDIVIDUALS who would not bow the knee to Baal in a former time, so He had a remnant of INDIVIDUALS which constituted an exact number in Paul's time. Hence, the principle that He has a remnant of INDIVIDUALS which constitute an exact number in all times.

Paul was speaking about INDIVIDUAL election no matter how you may parse Romans chapters 9-11. Now give it up!

 

[gmm4j]

Paul was speaking about INDIVIDUAL election no matter how you may parse Romans chapters 9-11. Now give it up!

An election based ON their righteousness by faith, not elected TO righteousness by faith.

 

[janxharris]

The text says nothing about God's omniscience. Yet you insert it into the text. It most CLEARLY says that God RESERVED for HIMSELF seven thousand men that would not bow the knee to Baal. This was a DEFINITIVE number.

As He RESERVED a remnant of a DEFINITIVE number then, so He RESERVED for HIMSELF a DEFINITIVE number in Paul's time.

It's clear! The problem is that YOU are disobedient!

Disobedient in what way?

1 Kings 19:18
“Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.”

Those that did not bow the knee to Baal found favour with God. If you are saying that nothing of those seven thousand men, of themselves (prompted by the Holy Spirit), was at work in their refusal to bow the knee to Baal then what is the point of God's creation? Did Job really fear God for who God was or was God behind Job's faith anyway? What kind of a test of a man is it if God brings about the outcome?

Did the God that sent his Son to die on the cross for mankind also hate and damn Esau before Esau had done anything?

Do you make known your views on this subject to non-believers when carrying out the great commission? Would you if asked?

In Romans 9, Paul clearly asserts that God has every right to choose to work through whom he wishes to work through. Currently he is working through the Gentiles until the fullness of them has come in.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Disobedient in what way?

1 Kings 19:18
“Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.”

Those that did not bow the knee to Baal found favour with God.

God CLEARLY said, "I will leave 7,000 in Israel...." Paul invoked this to establish his "election according to GRACE principle."

Yet you make it about them rather than God and His grace. But God said, "I will leave 7,000 in Israel...."

You are disobedient too!

 

[Clare73]

Not at all. In any story there is a theme and some characters. In His story God has involved individuals in working out his grand designs. That does not imply individuals were predestined but rather they were involved as God saw fit.

John
NZ

Jacob and Esau were predestined.

Your objection is not relevant to the principle of God's election spelled out therein, which is the priniciple of all his election.

Scripture presents individual election.

 

[Jack Terrence]

An election based ON their righteousness by faith, not elected TO righteousness by faith.

No! Of Jacob and Esau Paul said,

"The children having not yet been born, and neither having done any good or evil, that the PURPOSE OF GOD according to election might stand."

Election is based on the PURPOSE OF GOD!

 

[janxharris]

Jacob and Esau were predestined.

Your objection is not relevant to the principle of God's election spelled out therein, which is the priniciple of all his election.

Scripture presents individual election.

If you are correct that Esau was damned unconditionally, are you prepared to be an Esau yourself? Is it okay with you that God might have decided that He would hate and damn you before you existed? Unconditionally? For not everyone who says to Jesus, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Please do not be offended, I am not asserting that such is the case.

Genesis 25:23:
Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and older will serve the younger.

Are these verses about nations or individuals?

Romans 9:10-13
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The older nation will serve the younger.

2 Samuel 8:14
He put garrisons throughout Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.

Did Esau (the individual) serve Jacob (the individual)?

Malachi 1:2-5
“I have loved you,” says the Lord. “But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’ “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.” Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.” But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’

The people of Israel say, 'How have you loved US?'. They were shown compassion as a nation. As a nation Edom was hated for they were enemies of God's people.

 

[janxharris]

No! Of Jacob and Esau Paul said,

"The children having not yet been born, and neither having done any good or evil, that the PURPOSE OF GOD according to election might stand."

Election is based on the PURPOSE OF GOD!

Election is based on the purpose of God, you are correct.

Continuing your quote, verse 12 reads:
not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

Genesis 25:23
Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people stronger than the other; and the older will serve the younger.

The older nation did serve the younger nation (2 Samuel 8:14):
He put garrisons throughout Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.

Please show us that Esau served Jacob.

 

[Clare73]

If you are correct that Esau was damned unconditionally, are you prepared to be an Esau yourself? Is it okay with you that God might have decided that He would hate and damn you before you existed? Unconditionally? For not everyone who says to Jesus, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Please do not be offended, I am not asserting that such is the case.

I am not offended.

I am in agreement with God's election, all of it.

Ro 9 is about the election of Jacob and his descendants, not Esau's, to be the children who inherit the promise to Abraham.
It is not dealing with Esau's election to salvation, only to election to receive the promise.

But Ro 9 reveals the principle of God's election--his sovereign choice, which is the principle of all his election, and Scripture does present individual election.

 

[Skala]

Election is based on the purpose of God, you are correct.

Continuing your quote, verse 12 reads:
not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

Genesis 25:23
Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people stronger than the other; and the older will serve the younger.

The older nation did serve the younger nation (2 Samuel 8:14):
He put garrisons throughout Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.

Please show us that Esau served Jacob.

Synergists:"exegeting" Romans 9 by quoting other verses rather than exegeting the text of Romans 9 itself since 1618

 

[Jarrod Kruger]

Synergists:"exegeting" Romans 9 by quoting other verses rather than exegeting the text of Romans 9 itself since 1618

That is pure and utter foolishness.

With that kind of response,one can KNOW that you do not want the truth about Romans 9.

One should want other scriptures to be brought in to verify and compare.

One cant with your interpretation though, because your interpretation gets destroyed.

 

[Jack Terrence]

That is pure and utter foolishness.

With that kind of response,one can KNOW that you do not want the truth about Romans 9.

One should want other scriptures to be brought in to verify and compare.

One cant with your interpretation though, because your interpretation gets destroyed.

It is NOT a foolish criticism. Pretexting is not a valid method of interpretation. Each passage is to be exegeted within its own context. Then we may invoke other passages to verify and compare.