Romans 9

[Hammster]

He was invited, for all men are invited, but he did not carry out that which was required of him - he would not observe the correct dress code.

He equates to those that refuse to put their faith in Jesus.

So he didn't believe?

 

[janxharris]

So he didn't believe?

It would seem that he did not believe.

 

[janxharris]

We know from Galatians 4:22-31 that Hagar and Sarai allegorically represent two covenants: Hagar the covenant of the law and Sarai that of the promise.

Galatians 4:23,24,28
His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.​

So, in Romans 9:6b ('For they are not all Israel which are of Israel') it is clear that those that are the children of promise are true Israel, whilst those that are the children of the flesh are not. It is also clear that the additional examples of Jacob and Esau are not to be taken literally but allegorically.

Romans 9:10-13
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; ( For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.​

Paul is asserting that his fellow Israelites must be as (like) Isaac (children of promise) rather than like Ishmael (children of the flesh). Paul is not averring that Isaac was eternally saved and Ishmael was not. They allegorically represent the two covenants.

When Paul asks if God is unjust, he is asking if God is unjust to exclude the children of the flesh (those that pursue righteousness through the law) from being his children. In the very next chapter, Paul explicitly talks about this pursuit of righteousness:

Romans 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.​

God has mercy on whomsoever he wishes - that is, God provides the mercy - Jesus Christ - and anyone who puts their faith in Him is adopted as a Son.

Paul's conclusion is telling (v.30-32). It confirms that God does not foreordain some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I never said anything about the universe. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

OK, let's just quit playing games. What does "kingdom of God" mean to you? You have said it isn't heaven. Define it please. Good grief.

Why is getting any information out of you like pulling teeth?

 

[Hammster]

It would seem that he did not believe.

Then why did he show up?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Kingdom of God / heaven is where God rules. I agree that ultimately that's the universe. But since Jesus speaks of the coming of the Kingdom and of those who are in it, that can't be the sense in which he uses it. For Jesus the Kingdom is where God's rule is currently visible, i.e. those who obey Jesus -- viewed as a community. Jesus defines the Gospel as the good news of the coming of the Kingdom. Note that the Lord's prayer says "your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven." Thus we are praying for Jesus' mission of establishing the Kingdom here.

Sproul is right that the coming of the Kingdom is the most important theme in Matthew. It's what Jesus' defines as the Gospel. The same is true of Mark and Luke. When you compare Matthew and Luke, you'll see that Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven in some passages where Luke uses Kingdom of God, thus making it clear (if it wasn't already) that it's the same thing.

Thank you hedrick for a reasonable definition of "kingdom of God". Now, in that parable, can you tell me what the banquet represents in the "kingdom of God"?

Thanks.

 

[Hammster]

OK, let's just quit playing games. What does "kingdom of God" mean to you? You have said it isn't heaven. Define it please. Good grief.

Why is getting any information out of you like pulling teeth?

I think Hedrick did a good job of explaining in post 172.

 

[janxharris]

Then why did he show up?

It is unclear from the passage why he turned up. He was invited and turned up but did not respect the dress code.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm showing you that Jesus believed that the kingdom was here and now, and not some future place. I think He's an expert on it.

OK, so what does the banquet represent?

He actually didn't. He made it to the feast. You are trying to make a parable walk on all fours. You are missing the point. He showed up doing things his own way. That was not acceptable. That's why he's cast out.

So, what does the feast represent?

God's provisions. Being with Him while He provides what we need. It's present, not future. See Mark 1:15.

That's the feast?? And what makes you think Mark 1:15 has any direct connection to Matt 22?

When I provide verses from various places, I get charged with "apples and oranges".

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's pretty much how it is in the amil view. I hold to the amil view.

Well, that's very helpful, and explains why you don't understand me.

I reject the amil view. Rev 20 is quite clear about a literal 1,000 year reign. But you are free to believe what you want, of course.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is the amil view common amongst the reformed?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think Hedrick did a good job of explaining in post 172.

Yes, he did. Finally someone stepped up with an explanation.

 

[Hammster]

OK, so what does the banquet represent?


So, what does the feast represent?


That's the feast?? And what makes you think Mark 1:15 has any direct connection to Matt 22?

When I provide verses from various places, I get charged with "apples and oranges".

I explained all of this in the very post you've just quoted. So my answers are the same.

 

[Hammster]

Is the amil view common amongst the reformed?

Fairly common. Although MacArthur is a dispy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I explained all of this in the very post you've just quoted. So my answers are the same.

And apparently just as unclear. But nevermind. I'm tired of trying to pull teeth.

 

[Hammster]

Well, that's very helpful, and explains why you don't understand me.

I reject the amil view. Rev 20 is quite clear about a literal 1,000 year reign. But you are free to believe what you want, of course.

I understand you. I just think you're wrong. And as a side note, whenever 1000 is used in scripture, it's never literal.

 

[Hammster]

And apparently just as unclear. But nevermind. I'm tired of trying to pull teeth.

Okay. But you're the one that quoted me and asked for answers that were in the very post you quoted.

I explained why I quoted Mark 1, and I explained what the feast was.

 

[shturt678]

Jesus never taught the supposed doctrines of election and reprobation. Matthew 13 would seem to be, prima facie, supportive of the doctrine, but, as has been shown, it clearly is not.

That one of the foundational pillars of Calvinism is not taught by Jesus Christ is telling.

 

[shturt678]

Is the amil view common amongst the reformed?

A few of my ol' Reformed true friends decades ago and I went at it over their Amil. Reformed theologian Mr. Simon Kistemaker's works vs. Amil. Lutheran theologian Mr. RCH Lenski's works, and Amil. Lutheran theologian Mr. William Hendriksen's works. Sorry, I forget who won the debate and all the other Amil. works? Sorry again, also got carried away putting a plug in for the Lutheran's Amil. works.

Just ol' old Jack

 

[janxharris]

Jesus affirms the opposite to that which Calvin taught:

John 6:50-51
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”​

We also know that faith is not a work.

Romans 9:30-32
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.​

Faith cannot contain within it any trace of work, else it too would not have resulted in righteousness.

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.​