Romans 9

[Hammster]

And?

I guess I don't get a follow up.

 

[FreeGrace2]

ETA The calling you are referring to in Matt 22 is different than that in Rom 9.

Rather than just claiming they are different, why not explain why they are? That would be helpful.

 

[Hammster]

Rather than just claiming they are different, why not explain why they are? That would be helpful.

They are different words. As the OP, he should either defend his usage or admit that he used Matt 22 incorrectly.

 

[FreeGrace2]

They are different words. As the OP, he should either defend his usage or admit that he used Matt 22 incorrectly.

Since you responded with your claim, it is incumbent upon you to make your point. And now you claim the OP used the "call" of Matt 22 "incorrectly". Yet, again, nothing to back up your claim.

Matt 22:14
klētos G2822

1) called, invited (to a banquet)
1a) invited (by God in the proclamation of the Gospel) to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom through Christ
1b) called to (the discharge of) some office
1b1) divinely selected and appointed

Rom 11:29
klēsis G2821

1) a calling, calling to
2) a call, invitation
2a) to a feast
2b) of the divine invitation to embrace salvation of God

So, can you point out what is so different between these 2 very similar words?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:​

The true Israel (anyone who genuinely believes in Jesus) is not composed of all the descendents of Israel (the man).

Actually this is where you dropped the ball and your entire exegesis fell apart.

Quoting from James E. G. Dunn:

ου᾿ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ, “for not all those descended from Israel are Israel”; or, more precisely, “For all those from Israel, these are not Israel” (Piper, 47–48). For the significance of Ἰσραήλ see on 9:4. There was a natural tendency, on the part of some at least, to regard descent from the patriarchs as guarantee of salvation (attested in Matt 3:9//Luke 3:8; Justin, Dial 140; mSanh 10.1; see also SH, 249, and StrB, 1:116–21). But there is more evidence in contemporary literature of a wrestling with the problem of Jewish unfaithfulness by those who saw themselves as “the righteous,” “the devout,” “the chosen of Israel,” “the elect of righteousness” (as in 1Enoch 1; Wisd Sol 2–5; Pss Sol 3 and 13; CD 2.16–4.12; 5.15–6.11; IQH 2.6–37; 4.5–27; see further TDNT 4:184; Sanders, Paul, 245, 361, 378, 408; Zeller, Juden, 116–18; Dunn, “Pharisees&#8221

Spiritual Israel ought to be seen as the true elect or believing Israel. It doesn't not follow that Paul is making all believers a part of Israel, and pretty much all commentators will agree on this issue because it tears apart the actual point of the text, that the Word of God has not failed and the promise to Israel is not nullified. If Paul viewed Israel and the church as the same entity, it would make no sense for him in the prior section to reference "his kinsman" and later, regard the promise as by flesh through Isaac and Jacob, as verse 7-8 points out so very clearly: "but through Isaac shall your offspring be named", and therefore "the children of the promise are counted as offspring".

Obviously if you get it wrong at the beginning, the rest will fall apart.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Many (actually, all) are called, but few are chosen.

If all are called then what do you make of κλητοῖς in Jude 2 which refers to the entire clause τοῖς ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις?

The English renders it rather well, "to those who are called". The demonstrative pronoun "those" is clear that "those" who are called are identified as the "beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ".

From Richard J. Bauckham:

With the technical use of καλεῖν goes also the use of κλητός as a substantive (as here) as a technical term for Christians. Both are characteristic of Pauline usage, but by no means confined to Paul. Christians are κλητοί not only in Rom 1:6–7; 8:28; 1 Cor 1:2, 24 (as noun: Rom 1:6; 1 Cor 1:24), but also in Matt 22:14; Rev 17:14; IClem inscr.; Barn 4:13–14; SibOr 8:92 (as noun: Rev 17:14; IClem inscr.; SibOr 8:92; [vol. 50, p. 27] cf Heb 9:15, οἱ κεκλημένο&#953. In the parties’ formula of a letter, κλητοῖς is found in Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; IClem inscr., as well as in Jude 1

So in this context, only Christians are "the called", κλητός. This is why the Reformers refer to the general call and the effectual call. It is Biblical.

 

[Hammster]

Since you responded with your claim, it is incumbent upon you to make your point. And now you claim the OP used the "call" of Matt 22 "incorrectly". Yet, again, nothing to back up your claim.

Matt 22:14
klētos G2822

1) called, invited (to a banquet)
1a) invited (by God in the proclamation of the Gospel) to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom through Christ
1b) called to (the discharge of) some office
1b1) divinely selected and appointed

Rom 11:29
klēsis G2821

1) a calling, calling to
2) a call, invitation
2a) to a feast
2b) of the divine invitation to embrace salvation of God

So, can you point out what is so different between these 2 very similar words?

No one is talking about Romans 11.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Since you responded with your claim, it is incumbent upon you to make your point. And now you claim the OP used the "call" of Matt 22 "incorrectly". Yet, again, nothing to back up your claim.

Matt 22:14
klētos G2822

1) called, invited (to a banquet)
1a) invited (by God in the proclamation of the Gospel) to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom through Christ
1b) called to (the discharge of) some office
1b1) divinely selected and appointed

Rom 11:29
klēsis G2821

1) a calling, calling to
2) a call, invitation
2a) to a feast
2b) of the divine invitation to embrace salvation of God

So, can you point out what is so different between these 2 very similar words?

You show a poor understanding of etymology if you are going to define a word based on possible scope entirely apart from context. You do this quite often and it does nothing to advance your position.

 

[bling]

I agreed very much with your last paragraph.

Thank you for weighing through my explanation.

If the question that Paul was asking is: Is God unjust to have chosen whom
the promise would come to (Jesus), then we easily say that such election was not unfair.

“OK” but that is not the question being asked by the imaginary student (in this case the imaginary student (Christians in Roman) are made up of Gentile and Jewish Christians not really fellowshipping together since at least some of the Gentile Christians are not following the traditions of the Jewish specifically (circumcision, food requirements and holy days).

You have to keep in mind the whole context of Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians with the huge problem between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians, which Paul provides the understanding and solution extensively throughout his letter.

I think the 'problem' is summed up in vv. 30-32. Many Jews were incensed that righteousness was not attained through works of the law. Paul is explaining this all through Chapter 9, for God chose to have mercy on whom he would have mercy - and that is all those in Christ.

“The problem within the Roman Church (and really churches because the Jewish and gentile Christians do not seem to meeting together) is the fact that the Jewish and gentile Christians are not fellowshipping together”, would you see that as being a huge problem for the early church? Paul (who the best person in the world to address this problem) is addressing this throughout his letter.

30-32 is really talking about unbelieving Jews (all Jews were vessels made for a special purpose including the unbelieving Jews) and why the unbelieving ones are not saved, “They have to come to salvation the same way the gentiles come to salvation (by faith)”. That helps the gentile Christians realize the Jews really have nothing up on them, which is the message presented in Romans 9.

v. 8
In other 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.

Yes, but Paul in verse 8 is not talking about Gentiles being Abraham’s offspring. This is addressing those that are part of the promise which the Jews were at birth.

Paul is speaking of all men surely?

Not at all, the question (coming from the imaginary Gentile Christian student in the audience)? The Jewish Christians cannot say “how can God blame me” for not following his moral laws, since they have been trained since birth. The gentile Christian trying to “obey” these new to them moral laws plus all these rules the Jewish Christians want to place on them (circumcision, foods, and Sabbaths), would say “wow” how can God expect us to follow all these requirements when we were not raised to follow them (vessels made for a special task)????

I'm not sure this is the right line of reasoning. All men are, at some point in their lives, vessels of dishonour.

“vessels of dishonor” would be much better understood as “vessels not of honor” or “common vessels” (read 2 Tim 2: 20 where the same word is used by Paul).

The problem is the potter is God and it talks about the way pots leave the potters shop, while you have the vessels themselves making themselves into “vessels of dishonor”.

Nothing leaves the potter’s shop “worthless” since both vessels made for special purposes and vessels made for common purpose each fulfill a purpose.

God set up the Jewish people from their birth to have a special task.

Common or specially made vessels can be broken (this is not the potter’s fault) and thus cannot fulfill their purpose and thus are destine for destruction. The potter does not want any of his vessels that become broken kept around with his name on them.

Many Israelites could be justly described as vessels of dishonour.

Wait just a minute: “Did these Israelite’s start out from birth (leave the potter’s shop) as not honorable vessels”?

Again, I think Paul is saying that the vessels of honour are those that have faith in God's elect - Jesus.

How could they leave the potter’s shop that way?

In Ro 9 Paul used the Jews favorite examples against the Gentiles (Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ismael, Pharaoh and the Jews) contrasting Jews and Gentiles. Individuals raised from their birth as vessels of honor and non-honor. Paul then goes on to show how it does not matter how you were created from birth (both vessels can become worthless distant for hell) and both can find salvation through faith.

 

[janxharris]

Actually this is where you dropped the ball and your entire exegesis fell apart.

Quoting from James E. G. Dunn:



Spiritual Israel ought to be seen as the true elect or believing Israel. It doesn't not follow that Paul is making all believers a part of Israel, and pretty much all commentators will agree on this issue because it tears apart the actual point of the text, that the Word of God has not failed and the promise to Israel is not nullified. If Paul viewed Israel and the church as the same entity, it would make no sense for him in the prior section to reference "his kinsman" and later, regard the promise as by flesh through Isaac and Jacob, as verse 7-8 points out so very clearly: "but through Isaac shall your offspring be named", and therefore "the children of the promise are counted as offspring".

Obviously if you get it wrong at the beginning, the rest will fall apart.

I think you are correct with regards to verse 6, but Paul has Gentiles in mind following this.

v. 7 On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your seed will be reckoned.”

The promises were for Jesus Christ:
Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You show a poor understanding of etymology if you are going to define a word based on possible scope entirely apart from context. You do this quite often and it does nothing to advance your position.

Given that the range of meanings is nearly identical, your opinion does nothing to answer my question.

You don't even know my position.

 

[janxharris]

If all are called then what do you make of κλητοῖς in Jude 2 which refers to the entire clause τοῖς ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις?

The English renders it rather well, "to those who are called". The demonstrative pronoun "those" is clear that "those" who are called are identified as the "beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ".

From Richard J. Bauckham:


So in this context, only Christians are "the called", κλητός. This is why the Reformers refer to the general call and the effectual call. It is Biblical.

Matthew 22 is pretty clear that all are called to the banquet (which is the kingdom of heaven).

Jude 1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

They are 'called', 'loved in God' and 'kept for Jesus'. I'm not sure that one can build a case for effectual calling on this verse.

 

[Hammster]

Given that the range of meanings is nearly identical, your opinion does nothing to answer my question.

You don't even know my position.

Given that no one is talking about Romans 11, your point is moot.

 

[Hammster]

Matthew 22 is pretty clear that all are called to the banquet (which is the kingdom of heaven).

Jude 1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

They are 'called', 'loved in God' and 'kept for Jesus'. I'm not sure that one can build a case for effectual calling on this verse.

I'm not sure how you can look at Jude 1 and come to a different conclusion. (I figured I'd jump in here since you've ignored my previous posts.)

 

[janxharris]

I'm not sure how you can look at Jude 1 and come to a different conclusion. (I figured I'd jump in here since you've ignored my previous posts.)

Could you explain please.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No one is talking about Romans 11.

My bad.

 

[Hammster]

Could you explain please.

Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ: (Jude 1:1 NASB)

The called are those who are beloved in the Father and kept for Jesus. It's all one group. I think in your theology you'd have to read it as the called (who responded).

 

[Hammster]

My bad.

It happens.

 

[janxharris]

“OK” but that is not the question being asked by the imaginary student (in this case the imaginary student (Christians in Roman) are made up of Gentile and Jewish Christians not really fellowshipping together since at least some of the Gentile Christians are not following the traditions of the Jewish specifically (circumcision, food requirements and holy days).

Except that such issues are not mentioned in verses 6-13 - that is, those verses immediately preceding v. 14 'Is God unjust?'

You have to keep in mind the whole context of Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians with the huge problem between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians, which Paul provides the understanding and solution extensively throughout his letter.

I do accept there were problems between them.

“The problem within the Roman Church (and really churches because the Jewish and gentile Christians do not seem to meeting together) is the fact that the Jewish and gentile Christians are not fellowshipping together”, would you see that as being a huge problem for the early church? Paul (who the best person in the world to address this problem) is addressing this throughout his letter.

Ok

30-32 is really talking about unbelieving Jews (all Jews were vessels made for a special purpose including the unbelieving Jews) and why the unbelieving ones are not saved, “They have to come to salvation the same way the gentiles come to salvation (by faith)”. That helps the gentile Christians realize the Jews really have nothing up on them, which is the message presented in Romans 9.

Ok

Yes, but Paul in verse 8 is not talking about Gentiles being Abraham’s offspring. This is addressing those that are part of the promise which the Jews were at birth.

Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

The promises were for Jesus Christ alone. You seem to disagree.

Not at all, the question (coming from the imaginary Gentile Christian student in the audience)? The Jewish Christians cannot say “how can God blame me” for not following his moral laws, since they have been trained since birth.

Romans 9:19-24
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I still think that Paul is asserting that all men, at some time in their life, are vessels of dishonour. We know from Romans 5:18 that condemnation has come to all. Also:

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The vessels of mercy are those in Christ - surely?

“vessels of dishonor” would be much better understood as “vessels not of honor” or “common vessels” (read 2 Tim 2: 20 where the same word is used by Paul).

I'm not sure of your point.

The problem is the potter is God and it talks about the way pots leave the potters shop, while you have the vessels themselves making themselves into “vessels of dishonor”.
Nothing leaves the potter’s shop “worthless” since both vessels made for special purposes and vessels made for common purpose each fulfill a purpose.

v.23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Only those in Christ are prepared for glory.

God set up the Jewish people from their birth to have a special task.

Common or specially made vessels can be broken (this is not the potter’s fault) and thus cannot fulfill their purpose and thus are destine for destruction. The potter does not want any of his vessels that become broken kept around with his name on them.

Ok

Wait just a minute: “Did these Israelite’s start out from birth (leave the potter’s shop) as not honorable vessels”?

I still say that a vessel is only honourable if they are in Christ. The promises were to Abraham and his seed - which is Christ.

Again, I think Paul is saying that the vessels of honour are those that have faith in God's elect - Jesus.
How could they leave the potter’s shop that way?

They didn't.

In Ro 9 Paul used the Jews favorite examples against the Gentiles (Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ismael, Pharaoh and the Jews) contrasting Jews and Gentiles. Individuals raised from their birth as vessels of honor and non-honor. Paul then goes on to show how it does not matter how you were created from birth (both vessels can become worthless distant for hell) and both can find salvation through faith.

Vessels of honour in a 'chosen to service' sense, but not 'chosen to salvation'. I think we agree on this.

 

[janxharris]

Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ: (Jude 1:1 NASB)

The called are those who are beloved in the Father and kept for Jesus. It's all one group. I think in your theology you'd have to read it as the called (who responded).

Since Matthew 22 is clearly talking about the kingdom of heaven then Jude 1 has to be understood with such in mind.