Romans 9

[bling]

Okay - we agree that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Any man, without exception, can be a child of Abraham.

We can certainly agree to that, but in Romans 9, Paul is addressing the biological descendants of Abraham and only some of them carrying with them the promises. The Gentiles would not feel they were biologically born into the promises.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Correct! Most Calvinists contradict themselves. They say that God calls to salvation those whom He has no intention of saving.

Acts 16:14 shows the universal call AND the effectual call all in one verse:

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

here there is no denying that the external precedes the internal.

1 Peter 2:23 shows the Word of God as being instrument of bringing about regeneration:

Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.

It would be hard to argue that the living and abiding word of God could be anything other than the preaching of the Gospel.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Acts 16:14 shows the universal call AND the effectual call all in one verse:

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

here there is no denying that the external precedes the internal.

1 Peter 2:23 shows the Word of God as being instrument of bringing about regeneration:

Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.

It would be hard to argue that the living and abiding word of God could be anything other than the preaching of the Gospel.

These verses do not teach the "general call" doctrine. The fact that the non-elect are present when the gospel is preached does not constitute a call of God to them.

"Whom He CALLED them He ALSO justified."

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

These verses do not teach the "general call" doctrine. The fact that the non-elect are present when the gospel is preached does not constitute a call of God to them.

"Whom He CALLED them He ALSO justified."

Pragmatically, how are you to preach the Gospel then? Who can you preach it to?

 

[bling]

Okay - I hope that the following might address the points that you rightfully bring up. I am not asserting that what follows is the correct understanding of Romans 9, but just an attempt at dealing with the difficulties it seems to present.

Here in lies your first problem: “…difficulties it seems to present”. If you could place yourself, as best as you can, into the first century Roman Christian situation as a Jew or a gentile what Paul is saying in the context of what he has already said, would not be difficult to understand.

6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
​

It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. Not that Isaac himself was guaranteed salvation because he, as opposed to Ishmael, was chosen to be the blood-line through whom Christ would come. Let's be clear, Isaac had faith (Hebrews 11) because he chose to, not for any other reason.

This only supports what I am saying; since this whole of Ro. 9 is not addressing salvation coming by blood line. Neither is the “Faith” of Isaac being addressed in Ro. 9.
​

8Inother words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.
​

​

You are not to be considered a child of God through physical descent. The promise was to Christ.

What do you mean “The promise was to Christ.”? The promises were to Abraham and the Children of Abraham.
​

9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” 10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
​

Paul is underlining his central point - God chose those through whom Christ would come. The promise would not come through the offspring of Esau.

Now, it is clear to me, that Paul, in establishing this, is also establishing a principle which applies to an individual's salvation as well. Jacob did not do anything to merit the fact that Christ would come through his line. God chose. This is paralleled in the fact a man will not be saved through works of the law. God chose...that is, God chose to provide salvation in the person of Jesus Christ - and since faith in Christ is not a work, then we are not meriting salvation, but become included as heirs in God's choice...Jesus.

Wow, here is where you go way off on a tangent: “establishing a principle which applies to an individual's salvation as well” and “This is paralleled in the fact a man will not be saved through works of the law.” The “not by works” Paul uses in this passage coveys the meaning “Not by anything the individual did” and has nothing to do with “works of the law” (also the Law did not even exist at this time). Personally I would have chosen Esau over that cheating, lying, conniving snake in the grass Jacob, but God could see even prior to their birth he could work with Jacob and not Esau.

This is establishing the fact you cannot chose what family or situation you are born into (really the earthly task before you). Some (Roman Christians) were born into a highly moral, will educated in God’s law, supportive community, of worshippers of the true God (Jews in Rome) and others were born into the opposite kind of families (gentiles).

The bottom line as we will learn through Ro. 9-11 is “it does not matter”, since salvation has come equally to both groups and those born into the seemingly “better” group (Jews) are having just as hard of a time accepting Christianity as those born as gentiles, but their issues are just different issues.

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

​

God had every right to do it this way.

16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
​

God is merciful to those in Christ, and they are in Christ because of faith. Faith is not a work. Pharaoh, like all men, was rebellious, but even if he had been less evil, it would not have availed him of salvation. Salvation is only through faith. Paul also confirms that willful rebellion against God produces hardening. Again, though, we are not saved through being 'good'.

You say: “God is merciful to those in Christ…”, but God shows and has mercy for everyone, but only some accept God’s mercy (Love, charity, grace, forgiveness). Pharaoh was given the greatest opportunities possible to see the true God and humbly accept Him, but Pharaoh allowed these same “opportunities” to harden his heart. I do not know (yet God would know) when Pharaoh reached the point where he would never change (repent), but at that point Pharaoh takes on the lesser purpose of helping others to accept God’s charity, which is what we see him going through with Moses.

Yes, God has chosen to extend further “mercy” to those that accept His mercy and continue to harden those that continue to refuse God’s mercy.

To the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome at this time it would appear to them that God through their life has been showing greater “mercy” (preparedness) to the Jews than to the gentiles which could have become harden by lack of preparedness (more tolerant of sin). That apparent “mercy” of God toward the Jews will not result in all of them being saved (a lot are rejecting Christ).
​

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20But 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?’” 21Does 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?
​

All men, at some point, resist God's will. Only God's elect, Christ, and those in him would equate to pottery made for special purposes.

That does not fit the context “20…‘Why did you make me like this? Conveying the idea of the way we all start out.

You are presenting the idea we all start out made for a “common purpose” and later some are reworked into a “special purpose”, because of “faith”, but that does not fit Paul’s analogy.

Again the bottom line which Paul will explain (Ro. 9-11) is: “It does not matter how you started out” (and I think we can both agree with that idea). All clay vessels get damaged over time and are good for nothing but destruction (but it is not the potter’s fault). What really needs to happen is for the potter to remake us (rebirth us) into pots made of steel that cannot be broken.

​

22What 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? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
​

Paul makes the same point.

The “objects of God’s wrath” are not what left His shop, but through misuses have now been prepared for destruction (God does not want His name on these pots). God’s mercy comes with taking these pots distant for destruction and remaking them, these become objects prepared for glory, but objects prepared for glory are not all the same objects made originally for a special purpose (Jews), but come from both the Jews and Gentiles.
​

 

[bling]

If the question, 'Is God unjust?', relates to whether it was unjust of God to choose those through whom Christ would come and, also, in the same way, how God chose to provide the provision of salvation for individuals, then it would offend.

YES!! You are right it would be very unfair/unjust if “God chose to provide the provision of salvation for individuals”, but that is not the injustice Paul is talking about, but Paul is talking about the apparent injustice that is perceived, especially by the Gentile Christians, that the Jews were better prepared to accept and live the Christian life by the fact of their physical birth.

 

[Jack Terrence]

YES!! You are right it would be very unfair/unjust if “God chose to provide the provision of salvation for individuals”, but that is not the injustice Paul is talking about, but Paul is talking about the apparent injustice that is perceived, especially by the Gentile Christians, that the Jews were better prepared to accept and live the Christian life by the fact of their physical birth.

Wrong!

 

[bling]

We don't know how many of the Christians at Rome included some Jews who still held to works of the law, even though they had faith.

If you need me I can go through the whole Roman letter, showing how much Paul addresses the problem of Christians (especially Gentile Christians) forced to follow the Law especially: food, circumcision, and holidays observance (the gentiles having to start not working on the Sabbath).

From secular history we know there was a large Jewish community in Rome (there were two synagogues). They had been persecuted several times and some were driven out for a while and returned after the persecution died down. It appears the Church was established early on by Christian Jews returning home from Jerusalem after Pentecost and some fleeing Jerusalem after the stoning of Steven and other persecutions. These Jews would have returned home to their Jewish community or if they were fleeing would have started out in the Jewish community. There is no mention of the Jews in Rome persecuting the Jewish Christians and throwing them out of their communities. The Jewish Christians would have shared in the same persecution of the Jews by the Roman power.

 

[bling]

Wrong!

So is that the injustice Paul is talking about or is it not unjust for God to aritrarially chose whom He will save?

 

[Jack Terrence]

So is that the injustice Paul is talking about or is it not unjust for God to aritrarially chose whom He will save?

Paul is NOT speaking about an injustice. He is speaking about a perceived injustice on the part of those who reply against God for choosing whom He pleases.

And God does not "arbitrarily" choose.

arbitrarily: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

God has a purpose. But you say "arbitrarily" because you just don't like that He chooses.

 

[bling]

Paul is NOT speaking about an injustice. He is speaking about a perceived injustice on the part of those who reply against God for choosing whom He pleases.

And God does not "arbitrarily" choose.

arbitrarily: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

God has a purpose. But you say "arbitrarily" because you just don't like that He chooses.

Having a “purpose” does not mean it is not arbitrary.

God could have a purpose for arbitrarily selecting some people if God is just wanting some smaller group from a large group of sinners.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Having a “purpose” does not mean it is not arbitrary.

God could have a purpose for arbitrarily selecting some people if God is just wanting some smaller group from a large group of sinners.

You just sidestepped his point. God cannot choose arbitrarily. For God to make a choice necessitates that it has purpose. You responded with God again arbitrarily choosing people.

 

[Jack Terrence]

You just sidestepped his point. God cannot choose arbitrarily. For God to make a choice necessitates that it has purpose. You responded with God again arbitrarily choosing people.

Thanks bro! Reps for you.

Their choice of the word "arbitrarily" indicates that they don't like it that God has the right to choose and that He exercises that right.

 

[Skala]

So is that the injustice Paul is talking about or is it not unjust for God to aritrarially chose whom He will save?

Paul is anticipating his reader to cry injustice upon hearing that God chooses to have mercy on whomever He wants and harden whomever He wants, to serve his own plans and purposes.

Consequently, when Calvinists present their understanding of divine election, we get the same objections that Paul knew we would get, which proves to us that we are understanding election the way Paul intended us to.

In other words, the only proper understanding of election is one that causes objections of injustice, just like Paul anticipated. If Paul had presented a form of conditional election, he would have never had to stop and interject a response to an anticipated objection of injustice, because nobody would ever accuse conditional election of being unjust.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Paul is anticipating his reader to cry injustice upon hearing that God chooses to have mercy on whomever He wants and harden whomever He wants, to serve his own plans and purposes.

Consequently, when Calvinists present their understanding of divine election, we get the same objections that Paul knew we would get, which proves to us that we are understanding election the way Paul intended us to.

In other words, the only proper understanding of election is one that causes objections of injustice, just like Paul anticipated. If Paul had presented a form of conditional election, he would have never had to stop and interject a response to an anticipated objection of injustice, because nobody would ever accuse conditional election of being unjust.

Spot on chap!

 

[shturt678]

Rom.9:18, ".....whom he wills he hardens." "whom he will he hardens" cannot mean that God hardens some of the wretched and lost in consequence of an absolute eternal decree, ie, won't fly my friends.

The correlative of "he hardens" is not a poor, wretched, lost sinner. The only hardening that is effected by God and which the Scriptures are acquainted with is judicial; the only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves against all God's mercy, and have done that to such an extent as to be beyond further reach of that mercy, eg, hopeully not those on this thread including me?

Not voluntas antecedens, but voluntas consequens.

The Pharaoh hardened himself then God hardened this self-hardened man.

The case of the Jews was even worse.

Just ol' old Jack's view

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Rom.9:18, ".....whom he wills he hardens." "whom he will he hardens" cannot mean that God hardens some of the wretched and lost in consequence of an absolute eternal decree, ie, won't fly my friends.

The correlative of "he hardens" is not a poor, wretched, lost sinner. The only hardening that is effected by God and which the Scriptures are acquainted with is judicial; the only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves against all God's mercy, and have done that to such an extent as to be beyond further reach of that mercy, eg, hopeully not those on this thread including me?

Not voluntas antecedens, but voluntas consequens.

The Pharaoh hardened himself then God hardened this self-hardened man.

The case of the Jews was even worse.

Just ol' old Jack's view

If it is judicial, then v19 makes no sense as it is easily justified and plain to see.

 

[sdowney717]

Rom.9:18, ".....whom he wills he hardens." "whom he will he hardens" cannot mean that God hardens some of the wretched and lost in consequence of an absolute eternal decree, ie, won't fly my friends.

The correlative of "he hardens" is not a poor, wretched, lost sinner. The only hardening that is effected by God and which the Scriptures are acquainted with is judicial; the only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves against all God's mercy, and have done that to such an extent as to be beyond further reach of that mercy, eg, hopeully not those on this thread including me?

Not voluntas antecedens, but voluntas consequens.

The Pharaoh hardened himself then God hardened this self-hardened man.

The case of the Jews was even worse.

Just ol' old Jack's view

Actually since Paul uses an OT verse as an example of being hardened by God, here is another.

Now these people are all lost sinners. And all lost sinners are at enmity with God and disobedient to the gospel.

16 Thus Joshua took all this land: the mountain country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland, and the Jordan plain[c]—the mountains of Israel and its lowlands, 17 from Mount Halak and the ascent to Seir, even as far as Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He captured all their kings, and struck them down and killed them. 18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. 19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. All the others they took in battle. 20 For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

I dont see where God works differently today than back then.
All here were given over to destruction by God. Also today all poor sinners unless they repent are also going to be destroyed as they are all wicked poor sinners who unless God is merciful they are IMO, hardened.

Jesus makes a point that when people including the disciples do not understand, HE says they are hardened.

What I get from this is God hardens whom He will and has mercy on whom He will according to the words that He has spoken. According to His plan.
The example of the bread and the pieces they recover afterwards show the miracle power of God, yet they dont understand yet, because they have been hardened.

16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have no bread.”

17 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? 18 Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?”

They said to Him, “Twelve.”

20 “Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?”

And they said, “Seven.”

21 So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”

49 And when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was a ghost, and cried out; 50 for they all saw Him and were troubled. But immediately He talked with them and said to them, “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.” 51 Then He went up into the boat to them, and the wind ceased. And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled. 52 For they had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened.

God hardens some and then can also soften hearts afterwards.

 

[shturt678]

If it is judicial, then v19 makes no sense as it is easily justified and plain to see.

This time I didn't bait, however was ready of course Rom.9:19, yes, an individual Christian might ask this question v.19a. Now the plain to see with you: V.19b, "For his cousel who has withstood?

Ie, who has ever successfuly withstood. God certainly carries out his resolutions, and no man is able to resist them we can plainly see. But if that is true - and has not Paul himself said it? - why does God still blame the helpless victims?

Here the implication is that the victim of God's counsel cannot possibly be blamed by the God who resolved that counsel, the whole blame rests on God who determined that counsel which is not so easily justified and plain to see.

Going back to v.13, in other words, no presumptuousness was manifested, the Christian mind was only wrestling with a difficulty; but here some individual Christian forgets himself, and lets his mind turn toward presumptuousness and arrogance.

Conclusion: If God raised up Pharaoh in order to harden him, why does God still blame Pharaoh? The whole blame rests on God who determined that counsel.

The mind that turns toward presumptuousness and arrogance I think is more with the context than judicial?

Just ol' old Jack talking out loud again

 

[Jack Terrence]

The only hardening that is effected by God and which the Scriptures are acquainted with is judicial; the only objects of this hardening are men who have first hardened themselves against all God's mercy, and have done that to such an extent as to be beyond further reach of that mercy, eg, hopeully not those on this thread including me?

Not voluntas antecedens, but voluntas consequens.

The Pharaoh hardened himself then God hardened this self-hardened man.

The case of the Jews was even worse.

Just ol' old Jack's view

Paul said that God creates from the same lump vessels for glory and for damnation.