Romans 9

[janxharris]

Judas was never destined for anything except for exactly what Judas did. Kinda sad in a way to think that, but this was for the word of God to be fulfilled.

1. God is love...
2. God never destined Judas for anything except for exactly what Judas did...

?

 

[Jack Terrence]

So, there is a kingdom of heaven and heaven. Two heavens.

Not two heavens. The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of God. Matthew avoided using the name of God.

RC Sproul,

If we were to look for one single theme that seems to be the most central and most important theme of the entire gospel of Matthew, it would be the theme of the coming of the kingdom. We see in the first instance that the term gospel refers to the gospel of the kingdom — the good news of the announcement of the breakthrough of the kingdom of God. In Matthew’s case, he uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” rather than the terminology “kingdom of God.” He does this not because he has a different view of the meaning or content of the kingdom of God; rather, out of sensitivity to his Jewish readers, he makes common use of what is called periphrasis, a certain type of circumlocution to avoid mentioning the sacred name of God. So for Matthew, the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven is the same kingdom that the other writers speak of as the kingdom of God.

Why Does Matthew Use "the Kingdom of Heaven"? - The Gospels

 

[FreeGrace2]

Oh, you think the kingdom is heaven. Well, that explains your error.

If I'm wrong, then what does the kingdom represent?

And you also think there will weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven. Oh, boy.

Well, seems you don't understand what figurative language is. Remember, this didn't really happen. (your words)

Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 22:13 NASB)

Yeah. Got it. So what?

Either Jesus is describing hell, or just talking about people losing their rewards and crying in heaven.

You've chosen to believe that some of the non-elect actually get into hell, while I believe He was once again talking about reward. I suppose you have read Matt 6, right?

And you have mocked my view that the kingdom is heaven, yet you claim the "outer darkness" does describe hell. So what does the banquet hall in the kingdom represent to you?

This gonna be good.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The kingdom of heaven is not heaven. See the parable of the wheat and the tares. Do you believe that tares are in heaven?

Oh, that's a good one.

So then, just what is the kingdom of heaven, if not about heaven?

This gonna be good.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not two heavens. The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of God. Matthew avoided using the name of God.

RC Sproul,

If we were to look for one single theme that seems to be the most central and most important theme of the entire gospel of Matthew, it would be the theme of the coming of the kingdom. We see in the first instance that the term gospel refers to the gospel of the kingdom — the good news of the announcement of the breakthrough of the kingdom of God. In Matthew’s case, he uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” rather than the terminology “kingdom of God.” He does this not because he has a different view of the meaning or content of the kingdom of God; rather, out of sensitivity to his Jewish readers, he makes common use of what is called periphrasis, a certain type of circumlocution to avoid mentioning the sacred name of God. So for Matthew, the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven is the same kingdom that the other writers speak of as the kingdom of God.

Why Does Matthew Use "the Kingdom of Heaven"? - The Gospels

Let's just cut to the chase. In that parable, what is meant by the kingdom of heaven? And don't say "the kingdom of God". Or I'll just ask, ok, what is meant by the kingdom of God?

 

[Hammster]

2“The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are synonymous. It's not talking about heaven.

 

[Hammster]

He was invited but not chosen.

Why was he there, though?

 

[Hammster]

If I'm wrong, then what does the kingdom represent?

The kingdom of God.

and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15 NASB)

Well, seems you don't understand what figurative language is. Remember, this didn't really happen. (your words)

Okay. Then please explain what is happening if there's weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven? What is that figuring?

Yeah. Got it. So what?

Same language. It's describing hell. Does Jesus use the same description of hell that He does of those who lose rewards in heaven?

You've chosen to believe that some of the non-elect actually get into hell, while I believe He was once again talking about reward. I suppose you have read Matt 6, right?

I believe all non-elect are in hell. So I don't know what your point is.

And you have mocked my view that the kingdom is heaven, yet you claim the "outer darkness" does describe hell. So what does the banquet hall in the kingdom represent to you?

This gonna be good.

The banquet hall represents the kingdom of God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are synonymous. It's not talking about heaven.

So, you believe the parable is about the universe. You know, where God rules.

OK, so the improperly dressed man was ejected from the universe then.

OK. So where did he go? To mars or the moon? The text isn't real clear on that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The kingdom of God.

Which is what, exactly? The universe, or what part of it?

and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15 NASB)

Why do you bring a different text to the discussion regarding Matt 22?

Okay. Then please explain what is happening if there's weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven? What is that figuring?

The phrase refers to regret. Remember that the wiping away of "every tear" happens yet in the future. But you don't believe in eternal reward, so I don't suppose anything I say will be helpful.

Same language. It's describing hell. Does Jesus use the same description of hell that He does of those who lose rewards in heaven?

Actually, several times.

I believe all non-elect are in hell. So I don't know what your point is.

I made a huge typo. I meant heaven, not hell. You still haven't explained how in that parable this so-called non-elect type actually got into the kingdom.

The banquet hall represents the kingdom of God.

OK, which part of the universe?

Also, what does the wedding banquet represent? Yes, the marriage of the king's son. Got that. But what does the banquet represent?

 

[Hammster]

So, you believe the parable is about the universe. You know, where God rules.

OK, so the improperly dressed man was ejected from the universe then.

OK. So where did he go? To mars or the moon? The text isn't real clear on that.

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

 

[hedrick]

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.

 

[Hammster]

Which is what, exactly? The universe, or what part of it?


Why do you bring a different text to the discussion regarding Matt 22?

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.

The phrase refers to regret.

Proof? I showed that it's the state of those in hell. But I'll listen to your argument.

Remember that the wiping away of "every tear" happens yet in the future. But you don't believe in eternal reward, so I don't suppose anything I say will be helpful.

i believe in eternal rewards.

And most things you say aren't helpful.

Actually, several times.

Well, you are trying to desperately wiggle out of your statement that there will be weeping in heaven. So I expect that you believe this.

I made a huge typo. I meant heaven, not hell. You still haven't explained how in that parable this so-called non-elect type actually got into the kingdom.

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.

OK, which part of the universe?

I have no idea what you're asking.

Also, what does the wedding banquet represent? Yes, the marriage of the king's son. Got that. But what does the banquet represent?

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

 

[hedrick]

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

As I'm sure you know, there's been lots of scholarly discussion on this topic. I think the most straightforward reading of Jesus is that the Kingdom is both present and future. There is the seed growing secretly that will bloom in the future, but there is the present Kingdom that Jesus spent his life (and death) establishing.

I see the present Kingdom as a foretaste of the full Kingdom.

 

[Hammster]

As I'm sure you know, there's been lots of scholarly discussion on this topic. I think the most straightforward reading of Jesus is that the Kingdom is both present and future. There is the seed growing secretly that will bloom in the future, but there is the present Kingdom that Jesus spent his life (and death) establishing.

I see the present Kingdom as a foretaste of the full Kingdom.

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

 

[shturt678]

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

 

[janxharris]

I was trying to convey the idea that Judas was excluded. And you seem to have a short term memory?

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.

 

[janxharris]

It is very much issue brought up by Paul in verses 6-13!

I said that issues concerning 'circumcision, food requirements and holy days' are not found in those verses.

Paul talks about: only Abraham’s descendent son Isaac (a Jew) is heir to the promise and not the other son descendant of Abraham being Ishmael (a gentile).

How is Isaac a Jew? He isn't.

We know from Galatians 4:22-24; 28:

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.​

Isaac and Jacob represent the covenant of promise and Ishmael and Esau the covenant of the law.

Paul then follows with the promise went to Jacob a Jew and not Esau a gentile. Yes, the Jews were a very select group to fulfill a very wonderful objective.

So what will the gentile Christians be thinking and feeling after hearing from Paul how they were treated by God compared to the Jews in the beginning?

Do those stories sound like God is being a little “unfair” to the gentiles?

Okay, I see where you are going with this. As things stand, I disagree with you as to whom Paul is addressing his 'Is God unjust' to. You say Gentile Christians but I think it was Jewish. Verse 12a says, 'not by works but by him who calls.' Such a verse would offend Jews but not Gentiles because we know that it was Israel that pursued righteousness through works of the law (vv. 30-32). Also, in the very next chapter, Paul says:

Romans 10:1-4
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

So Paul telling them it had nothing to do with works was a slap in the face. We know from Paul's summation in Romans 9:30-32 that faith was the key to righteousness. Verse 30 begins with, 'What shall we say then?', so we know that all that he has written before demonstrates what he concludes.

Were there lots of things promised Abraham? (land, number of descendants, being their God)

Yes.

Were these same promises made to gentiles?

Anyone believing in Christ are heirs.

There was a promise concerning the “seed” singular made to Abraham, but the context of Paul’s discussion here is about, the Jewish people and the gentile people.

?

The King James version is not helping you here.

KJV “Thou wilt say then unto me…” is to convey the idea “one of you will ask…” (Meaning one of the Christians from Paul’s imaginary student this one being an imaginary gentile Christian will ask).

I'm not sure why KJV is a problem.
Why a Gentile Christian? Surely it would be the Jewish Christian who would ask since he has been told that no amount of works will make him righteous? It does not depend on human desire or effort they are told.

Again the KJV is doing you a disserves with “vessels of dishonor” and that is the reason I referred you to 2 Tim. 2: 20 even in the KJV it reads: 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

Would there be wood and earth vessels that were “worthless” (disgraceful/ to be burned up) kept in a great house?

Paul is saying there are not only special vessels but common vessels are in a great house, which is the same analogy Paul uses in Ro. 9: 21.

Common vessels (made of wood and clay in Tim.) are not made for destruction but for good purposes, but not the same special objective other vessels are made for.

The problem is both special vessels and common vessels can become “damaged” (sin) worthy of destruction. Now God can be very patient with these damaged vessels (common or special) and (this is not being addressed) we know an all-powerful potter could repair his vessels.
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.

2 Timothy 2 is about teachers. I agree that both vessels can become worthy of destruction, but we must not forget that all men are vessels fitted to destruction.

The vessels of His mercy come from both the vessels made for a special purpose and vessels made for a common purpose Ro 9: 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

One becomes a vessel of mercy by turning from one's vessel of wrath status by putting one's faith in Christ.

Again it is because you assume: “vessels of mercy” = “vessels of honor” and “vessels of dishonor” = “vessels of wrath”, but that is not what Paul is saying. A better translation of the Greek would help you. Any vessel that becomes damaged has made itself a vessel made for destruction, but that is not the way it left God’s shop. All common and special vessels become damaged and God will patiently wait for the opportunity to be allowed to repair them.

I think I agree with you last sentence. I am still a tad confused by your argument.

How were they made to begin with?
Do you have a problem with God the potter repairing a common vessels, so it can fulfill its common purpose?

I don't have a problem with that.

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

I agree that nobody is chosen to salvation for God foreknows all events.

Both vessels; those created for a special purpose (you translate “honor”) and those created for a common purpose (you translate “dishonor”) all have a wonderful objective, but not the exact same purpose. They all become damaged and in need of the Potter’s repair, those that do not allow the potter to repair them, wind up in hell.

I am a little bemused by your mixing 2 Timothy 2 with Romans 9. I will need to look at it further.

 

[Hammster]

He was invited but not chosen.

Why was he there, though?

 

[janxharris]

Why was he there, though?

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.