Individual salvation is not the subject of Romans 9

[Epoisses]

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.”

This calvinistic 'proof text' has been proven wrong so many times I've lost count.

When in their individual lives did Esau ever serve Jacob? Never. Jacob was terrified of Esau his whole life and bowed before him seven times when they finally met near the end of their lives. Also, if we go to Malachi and the original text it becomes obvious that this is speaking to nations and not individuals.

 

[Johnnz]

Most of Romans is not about individual salvation, not just Romans 9-11. We have been reading it through the wrong glasses for centuries.

John
NZ

 

[bling]

I already addressed this. The thrust of this conclusion is not individual salvation. Not sure you have made any point to the contrary.

It is thought that when the first century Jews (and even most Jews today) talked about “salvation” they are talking about the Nation (Country) of Israel being saved by God and not individual going to heaven, so when the New Testament talks about salvation is it individual salvation?

If Paul is not talking about individual salvation what other type of salvation could Paul be talking about?

The first Christians were Jews but Jesus was emphatically rejected by the Jewish nation and so God is now working through the Gentiles. Where is individual salvation discussed in this chapter?

Again, “nations” are not what is being saved, but individuals in nations. There were lots of individual Jews that accepted Christ and later lots of gentiles will accept Christ, but no “nation” as a whole would ever “accept” Christ. It is “all who”, “not all are children”, and not just Israel. It is “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” and does not say “nations” or “groups”. “it depends not upon man’s will” again God did not say the “nation’s will”. Again “I have raised you” speaking of an individual and not a nation.

This definitely could not be nations Paul is talking about: “So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.”

“who are you, a man, to answer…” and Paul did not say: “What nation may ask…”.

Paul is not talking about the nation of Israel and the nations of Gentiles since some come from both groups: “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”

Surely you are not suggesting God would hate an individual 'before they were born or had done anything good or bad'?

First off: You have to understand what “hate” is when deity uses the word. Jesus tells us, we are to “hate” everyone in our family, so does that mean we do not Love them?

God can “hate” the fact that He will not be able to work with the disposition of Esau and must work with Jacob (who is a sorry person to begin with).

Just because God “hates” Esau does not mean Esau was not “saved”.

Yes, God is not unjust in choosing a nation or people through whom He might work. No individual salvation is mentioned here.

Who is asking, why are they asking, and what are they talking about: “19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault?” Is that “fault” with the nation (Rome since it is addressed to the Romans) or the individual (individual Gentiles that where not raised among the privileged group of God’s select people [Jews])?



The bottom line is it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both were judged by their heart condition. We do know there was a “law” written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but the OT scripture is only addressing the Jews with little glimpses of Gentiles (like Nineveh).

Not sure where you are going with this.

The problem Paul is addressing (and he is well suited to address) is the division between gentile Christians and Jewish Christians in Rome. The Jewish Christians are will prepped for the Messiah (morally, educationally, as a family, knowledge of God, they are used to being unique, and they may have accepted John the Baptist message/baptism). It was probably humbling for a gentile Christian just to be around these Jewish Christians. The Jewish Christians could teach these Gentile Christians tons of excellent information they could use, but they could also make it very hard on these gentile Christians by saying: you have to be circumcised, eat very select foods, and keep the Sabbaths. The Jews had already been circumcised and were used to keeping the Sabbath and food requirements. This would not seem “fair” to the Gentile Christians (Why did God provide them “all” these advantages)?

So Paul is going to first admit that the Jews were privileged by God in many ways, but then Paul will point out that this also is a stumbling block to individual Jews accepting God’s salvation for them and many Jews have not accepted God’s salvation, so who is better off?

 

[bling]

Most of Romans is not about individual salvation, not just Romans 9-11. We have been reading it through the wrong glasses for centuries.

John
NZ

What other type of "salvation" is there in the NT?

 

[bling]

Have already addressed this in OP



You are loosing me with this.



?

The Jews (descendants of Jacob and Isaac) are not going to have any problem with God selecting Jacob and Isaac over the gentiles Ishmael and Esau. The gentile would have a problem with is.

I think a problem only arises if someone is given a leg up into heaven.

Will think about like this, if you today converted to Muslim and let us say: to be a “saved” Muslim you were told you had to learn to read the Quran in Arabic, would you feel the all those native speaking and reading Arabic’s were specially blessed by God “a leg up”?

A hebrew - they were the ones who were indignant at loosing their chosen status.

Paul specifically says: “one of you” and we know from the context Paul is addressing only Gentile and Jewish Christians (Christians in Rome) and really mostly addressing the Gentiles. Why would the Jewish Christians in Rome feel they had “lost their status” since they were still being good Jews and could see themselves “above” those gentile Christians that just could not follow God’s Law. These Jewish Christians at least in their own minds would have been doing everything right, while the Gentile have been told by the Jewish Christians they are not doing everything right (circumcision, foods and Sabbaths).

The Jews, in a general sense, rejected Jesus and sought righteousness through the law. The blame lies with them. They 'stumbled over the stumbling stone'.

Paul is only addressing “Christians”, the Jewish Christians have not rejected Christ.

You say: “The blame lies with them”, but the Question is: “how can God blame us?” The fault for those unbelieving Jews that do not accept Christ does lie with them, but that is not “one of you” since Paul is addressing Christians. Further, how could an even unbelieving Jew say: “they are above God’s blame”, since God has done everything, even above the gentiles initially, to help the Jews to accept the true Messiah?

 

[Clare73]

Paul, in his conclusion of this chapter, says (vv. 30-33):

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “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."

Since some Jews did obtain righteousness through faith, Paul is not talking about individuals but about Israel and the Gentiles in a general sense - God would now work through the Gentiles (in general) rather than Israel.

Paul's argument in chp 9 is that God's cutting off Israel because of unbelief is not inconsistent with his clearly stated purpose in his word (9:6).

Following Paul's statement that nothing "will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord," he addresses the obvious question it raises: But what about Israel, they are cut off, separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus? Why does Israel not believe and receive sonship (see Jn 5:3-47)?

Paul first expresses his grief that Israel has been cut off, after being chosen as God's people (see Zec 11:4-11, where the reason for the judgment on Israel is given in vv. 1-3; viz, rejection of the Messianic Shepherd-King).

He points out that, although Israel was given many advantages by God, his promise of sonship was not to all the descendants of Abraham, just as it was not to Ishmael and Esau. God sovereignly chose Jacob to inherit the promise instead of Esau, before they were even born or had done anything good or bad--in order that his purpose in election might stand; i.e., not by works but by him who calls.

The issue Paul is preparing to address here is sonship by works, or by faith.

So having introduced God's sovereignty into his presentation, Paul addresses the obvious question it raises: So is God unjust to Esau, and Israel? His answer: Not at all, God has the right to dispense his mercy and compassion as he chooses, for it is not owed to anyone, it is a gift, which has nothing to do with the recipient, but with God's soverign choice of to whom he will grant them.

To demonstrate the fact of God's right to dispense, or not to dispense, mercy, Paul shows it is revealed in the name of God in the OT (Ex 33:19), and he shows its application in the account of Pharoah, concluding from both that God has mercy on whom he wants (chooses) to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants (chooses) to harden.

Which then raises the next obvious question: Then why does he blame us for hardening our hearts? Who can resist his will that they be hardened?

Paul's answer. . .the sovereignty of God. "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" God is the sovereign potter who has the right to make from his clay some vessels for noble purposes and some for common use (human waste vessels for wrath).

Which raises the next issue: So why would he choose to make some vessels the objects of his wrath, who prepared themselves for destruction, rather than make all vessels for mercy? His answer: what if God did this to make his wrath and power known, as a foil for making known to the objects of his mercy the riches of his glory (goodness). However, while no one can call God to account for what he does, Paul does point out God's great patience toward the objects of his wrath, for the purpose of bringing about the repentance of some.

Continuing on with his presentation of the sovereignty of God in election to mercy, Paul uses the prophecies of Hosea 2:23, 1:10 to show that the forgiving, saving, restoring God takes the Gentiles who are "not my people" and makes them "my people" by sovereignly grafting them into the covenant.

Then he uses the prophecies of Is 10:22-23, 1:9 to show that only a small remnant of Israel would ever be saved (see Ro 11:5-6), and that God's calling includes both Gentiles and Jews, but the great majority are Gentiles. And we know what the calling to both Jews and Gentles in the NT is: to salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ, by grace.

Having introduced Gentiles into his presentation, he addresses the reason for Israel's rejection and the Gentiles' calling: unbelief and belief, respectively. The Gentiles pursued righteousness by faith and obtained it, while Israel pursued it by works and did not attain it. They stumbled over the Messiah, the "stumbling stone" (1Pe 2:8), and fell into rejection.
Their unbelief and belief regarding what? Regarding rightousness, not by works but by faith in Jesus Christ, which is salvation.

That is the argument of Ro 9: God's rejection of unbelieving Israel is not inconsistent with his promise they would be his people (spiritual sonship), because his promise was not to all, only to some, just as it was not to all Abraham's descendants, and he has saved and is saving some of them through faith in Jesus Christ.

So God's choice to work through either the Jews or Gentiles in a general sense

is necessarily a choice to salvation, because he works only through the saved

to spread the gospel of the kingdom.

 

[Johnnz]

Originally Posted by Johnnz

Most of Romans is not about individual salvation, not just Romans 9-11. We have been reading it through the wrong glasses for centuries.

John
NZ
​

What other type of "salvation" is there in the NT?

In Romans Paul sets out a broad panorama of creation, sin and God's actions in history culminating in Christ, and event that changed everything. We, as individuals, either accept or reject Christ's gift to us.

We need that larger perspective to properly understand what Paul wrote in Romans.

John
NZ

 

[Clare73]

Most of Romans is not about individual salvation, not just Romans 9-11. We have been reading it through the wrong glasses for centuries.

What other type of "salvation" is there in the NT?

In Romans Paul sets out a broad panorama of creation, sin and God's actions in history culminating in Christ, and event that changed everything. We, as individuals, either accept or reject Christ's gift to us.

We need that larger perspective to properly understand what Paul wrote in Romans.

Paul deals with election in Romans 9, the election of Jacob over Esau.

"Elect" is first mentioned in the NT by Jesus himself, as those whom God has chosen to salvation (Mk 13;20, 22, 27; Lk 18:7).

We next find it in Paul's epistles, where it refers to those whom God has chosen for salvation (Ro 8:33; Col 3:12; 1Ti 5:21; 2Ti 2:10; Titus 1:1), and then in Peter and John's letters (1Pe 1:2, 2:6; 2Jn 1, 13) referring to the same.

So in Ro 9, when Paul treats of election based solely in God's sovereign choice, he is explaining the nature of all God's sovereign election, wherever and whenever he elects.

Ro 9 is necessarly about the nature of all God's election, including individual election to salvation.

 

[AndOne]

Paul, in his conclusion of this chapter, says (vv. 30-33):

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “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."

Since some Jews did obtain righteousness through faith, Paul is not talking about individuals but about Israel and the Gentiles in a general sense - God would now work through the Gentiles (in general) rather than Israel. Jesus explicilty alludes to this watershed moment in Matthew 23:38,39 when his reproof of the Jewish religious leadership reaches its climax:

Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

When Paul says in his letter to the Romans, 'What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!' (v.14), Jacob's eternal salvation (as an individual) is not in view but rather whether God's choice of Israel (the nation), through whom Christ would come, was unfair. Individual salvation is dealt with elsewhere in Paul's letter, but not here.

Verses 11-13:
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.”

Jacob was elected rather than Esau - elected to be the one through whom Jesus would come. God hated Esau in the same way that Jesus told mankind to hate their own family (such use being a Jewish idiom):

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 19:19
Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I admit to being somewhat troubled by the reference to Pharoah from verse 17, but this may be resolved if we consider that, again, Paul is talking about the nation of Egypt rather than specifically Pharoah. Consider 1 Samuel 6:6:

Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel’s god dealt harshly with them, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?

When I was a kid and read the book of Romans for the first time - though I had no clue of Calvinism or even what election meant in scripture I never once thought that any part of Romans 9 was not about individual salvation. I think to say otherwise is a pretty big stretch.

 

[Johnnz]

So in Ro 9, when Paul treats of election based solely in God's sovereign choice, he is explaining the nature of all God's sovereign election, wherever and whenever he elects.

Ro 9 is necessarly about the nature of all God's election, including individual election to salvation.

God's election was historical in that he upheld his promise to Abraham which resulted in Israel having a special relationship with God in accordance with that promise. Deut 7:6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. NIV

That humanity was to find its fulfilment in Christ which entailed what we know as 'the church' was also part of God's designs, before the foundations of the earth, people becoming adopted members of God's family. That is what election is all about, noy that some individuals are 'elected' for salvation and others aren't.

 

[janxharris]

When I was a kid and read the book of Romans for the first time - though I had no clue of Calvinism or even what election meant in scripture I never once thought that any part of Romans 9 was not about individual salvation. I think to say otherwise is a pretty big stretch.

The first six verses establish that Paul is talking about his brethren, the people of Israel. Paul laments the fact that the majority of Jews did not accept Jesus. They still don't. God is 'waiting' for them to say 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord'. Obviously, the majority of Jews would be strongly influenced by their leadership who, as we know, emphatically rejected Jesus. Also, the Pharisees sought righteousness through the Law, not faith - 'They stumbled over the stumbling stone'. Paul goes on to make the point that they (Israel the nation) were not chosen because of righteousness.

If it is about individual salvation, are you asserting that God literally hated Esau the individual?

Hebrews 11:23
By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.

The context of this (the faith chapter) is individuals. Esau, as an individual, was blessed for he was given Mount Seir and became a nation.

Genesis 25:23
The Lord said to her (Rebecca), “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

Jacob (the younger) served Esau (the elder) as they grew up as individuals (Genesis 32 and 33). As a nation, Esau (the elder) served Jacob:

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.

 

[Clare73]

Paul deals with election in Romans 9, the
election of Isaac over Ishmael, and Jacob over Esau, individual elections of them and their descendants to receive the promise of Abraham.

"Elect" is first mentioned in the NT by Jesus himself, as those whom God has chosen to salvation (Mk 13;20, 22, 27; Lk 18:7).

We next find it in Paul's epistles, where it refers to those whom God has chosen for salvation (Ro 8:33; Col 3:12; 1Ti 5:21; 2Ti 2:10; Titus 1:1), and then in Peter and John's letters (1Pe 1:2, 2:6; 2Jn 1, 13) referring to the same.

So in Ro 9, when Paul treats of election based solely in God's sovereign choice, he is explaining the nature of all God's sovereign election, wherever and whenever he elects.

Ro 9 is necessarly about the nature of all God's election, including individual election to salvation.

God's election was historical in that he upheld his promise to Abraham which resulted in Israel having a special relationship with God in accordance with that promise. Deut 7:6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. NIV

That humanity was to find its fulfilment in Christ which entailed what we know as 'the church' was also part of God's designs, before the foundations of the earth, people becoming adopted members of God's family. That is what election is all about, not that some individuals are 'elected' for salvation and others aren't.

Paul shows that Jacob was elected and Esau was not, in his demonstration of the nature of God's election, which is the same in all his electing.

 

[janxharris]

Paul shows that Jacob was elected and Esau was not, in his demonstration of the nature of God's election, which is the same in all his electing.

Elected to what?

 

[travelah]

Paul shows that Jacob was elected and Esau was not, in his demonstration of the nature of God's election, which is the same in all his electing.

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.

 

[travelah]

When I was a kid and read the book of Romans for the first time - though I had no clue of Calvinism or even what election meant in scripture I never once thought that any part of Romans 9 was not about individual salvation. I think to say otherwise is a pretty big stretch.

If that "clear reading" is the basis for your understanding, how did you ever arrive at a Calvinist understanding of the following.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Additionally, when Paul states "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.", why didn't you consider referring back to the place where such is actually written? The Berean method is to examine the scriptures to see and know if these things are true.

 

[Clare73]

Elected to what?

The following:

Paul deals with election in Romans 9, the election of Isaac over Ishmael, and Jacob over Esau to receive the promise to Abraham and his descendants in Ge 17 that they would be God's people, family (Ex 6:7), if they kept his covenant (Ge 17:9).

"Elect" is first mentioned in the NT by Jesus himself, as those whom God has chosen to salvation (Mk 13;20, 22, 27; Lk 18:7).

We next find it in Paul's epistles, where it refers to those whom God has chosen for salvation (Ro 8:33; Col 3:12; 1Ti 5:21; 2Ti 2:10; Titus 1:1), and then in Peter and John's letters (1Pe 1:2, 2:6; 2Jn 1, 13) referring to the same.

So in Ro 9, when Paul treats of election based solely in God's sovereign choice, he is explaining the nature of all God's sovereign election, wherever and whenever he elects.

Ro 9 is necessaGod's election, including rly about the nature of all individual election to salvation.

God's election was historical in that he upheld his promise to Abraham which resulted in Israel having a special relationship with God in accordance with that promise. Deut 7:6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. NIV

That humanity was to find its fulfilment in Christ which entailed what we know as 'the church' was also part of God's designs, before the foundations of the earth, people becoming adopted members of God's family. That is what election is all about, noy that some individuals are 'elected' for salvation and others aren't.

Paul shows that Jacob was elected and Esau was not, based only on God's sovereign choice, in his demonstration of the nature of God's election, which is the same in all his electing.

 

[bling]

The first six verses establish that Paul is talking about his brethren, the people of Israel. Paul laments the fact that the majority of Jews did not accept Jesus. They still don't. God is 'waiting' for them to say 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord'. Obviously, the majority of Jews would be strongly influenced by their leadership who, as we know, emphatically rejected Jesus. Also, the Pharisees sought righteousness through the Law, not faith - 'They stumbled over the stumbling stone'. Paul goes on to make the point that they (Israel the nation) were not chosen because of righteousness.

This is not directly part of Paul’s teaching method (imaginary student quest with a no answer and explanation). These first 6 verses are not a question needing and answer but it is a statement introducing something. So who is needing to hear this (you only have Jewish Christians and/or Gentile Christians as a possibility)?

Paul does not deal with some academic philosophical dissertation, but writes to address the issues the Roman Christians are facing right then.

Who needs to know: “being born a Child of Abraham does not make you a Child of the Promise”?

Who needs to know: “As prepped as the Jews are many are not accepting and many may not ever accept”?

If it is about individual salvation, are you asserting that God literally hated Esau the individual?

We are to literally “hate” (by deity’s definition of hate) our parents and whole family?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Paul, in his conclusion of this chapter, says (vv. 30-33):

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “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."

Since some Jews did obtain righteousness through faith, Paul is not talking about individuals but about Israel and the Gentiles in a general sense - God would now work through the Gentiles (in general) rather than Israel. Jesus explicilty alludes to this watershed moment in Matthew 23:38,39 when his reproof of the Jewish religious leadership reaches its climax:

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

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.

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.

 

[travelah]

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

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.

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.

That merely affirms the omniscience of God and that is not in question here.

 

[Jack Terrence]

That merely affirms the omniscience of God and that is not in question here.

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.