Romans 9 -- What Is It Saying?

[The Biblicist]

Paul has just declared that God works all things together for the good of those who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). That purpose is then spelled out in Romans 8:29-32 for the called who are specifically identified as "the elect."

In Romans 9 Paul anticipates an objection to God's effectual purpose of redemption.If God is working all things for the good of his elect then how do you explain God's purpose for Israel as the elect nation of God and their rejection of Christ? Paul's answers this anticipated objection in Romans 9-11.

Paul first asserts that God does have an elective purpose for the salvation of Israel - (Rom. 9:1-5) and their present unbelief in Christ does not alter that promise or make it of non-effect (Rom. 9:6a). He then defines the proper understanding of God's purpose of election (Rom. 9:6b-13). Election of Israel does not mean that God will save every natural born Jew, as not all natural born Jews are of the promised elect Israel that God purposed to save. Elect Israel consists only of Jews who have been twice born, or Jews who have been supernaturally born by God as typified by Isaac rather than only natural born Jews as typified by Ishmael (Rom. 9:6b-9).Second, the promise refers only to Jews who have been individually chosen by God based upon unconditional election before they were ever physically born into this world as typified by Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:10-13). Thus God's promise to Israel is inclusive only of twice born Jews who individually are unconditionally elected by God.

Now in Romans 9:14-11:28 Paul anticipates objections to what he has just taught. Now, consider the kind of objections that he anticipates. Are these objections that would characterize the Calvinist position of election or the Arminian position of election? The objections anticipated are as follows:

1. Unconditional election makes God unjust - vv. 14-18
2. Unconditional election makes God the author of sin - vv. 19-23
3. Unconditional election is only a Jewish thing - vv. 24-26
4. Unconditional election of unrighteous Gentiles does not make sense over Jews who follow after righteousness - 9:27-10:13
5. Unconditional election does not harmonize with the preaching of the gospel - Rom. 10:14-21
6. Unconditional election does not accomplish the promise that "all Israel" shall be saved but only results in a 'remnant" of Israel being saved - Rom. 11

Does the anticipated objector sound like a Calvinist or an Arminian? For example, let us consider the first anticipated objection:

Rom. 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

He just said that Jacob was chosen by God according to God's purpose of election before he was born and not based upon either good or bad foreseen behavior. He just concluded that such a predestinated election demonstrates God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Now, whose theology would cause them to respond that kind of unconditional election makes God unrighteous - unjust? Would a Calvinist respond that way or would an Arminian?

What is Paul's response? His immediate response is "God forbid" or no, unconditional election or particular redemptive love does not make God unjust. He then defends that response in Romans 9:15-18.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Instead of backing down from unconditional elective love, he defends it by basically saying God can love whom he wills and he can reject whom he wills and election is not condition upon him "that willeth or him that runneth" but is wholly based upon God's mercy and mercy cannot be demanded or it ceases to be mercy. Therefore unconditional election is not a matter of justice but a matter of mercy. What does that mean? It means that mankind is considered as condemned already as sinners and all of mankind justly deserves God's wrath and election is an act of God's mercy which cannot be demanded by any sinner.

He then gives Pharoah as an example of one who deserved justice and got exactly what he deserved rather than mercy and God determined to exercise justice upon Pharoah rather than mercy because Pharoah was condemned already as a sinner and his response manifested that sinful condition. This whole argument of unconditional election is based upon the assumption that man is already in a fallen condition and justly deserves God's wrath and election is an act of God's mercy which He can sovereignly bestow upon whom he wills without being unjust to those he does not bestow it.

It may help to understand the hardening of Pharoah's heart by this illustration. It is the same sun that shines upon butter and clay. The sun hardens the clay and melts the butter. The difference is not in the sun but in the natures of clay and butter. Sinners apart from God's mercy are always hardened when exposed to God and his light. Hence, the more Pharoah who is a sinner by nature, and thus one who is by nature at enmity with God and not subject to the law of God is exposed to God and his light, he will always freely respond by hardening against God. In contrast, one who is the object of God's unconditional elective regenerative mercy will freely respond by softening or submitting to God. Thus the human will operates freely within the boundaries of its own nature. Not even God's will or volition can operate contrary to his own nature. For example he "cannot lie" as that is contrary to his own holy nature. Sinful man cannot submit to God (Rom. 8:7) because it is contrary to their own sinful nature but their will operates freely within the boundaries of their nature just as freely as God's own will operates within the boundaries of his own nature.
(Continued)

Election is personal and individual as Paul says that "Jacob" by name as an individual was chosen according to the purpose of election.

Jeremiah is known individually and personally by God before he was born (Jer. 1:5) and so to deny that "Jacob" refers to a person does not help in the least. Salvation is not a corporate action but an individual and personal action and we are "chosen unto salvation" and thus it must be just as individualized and personalized - 2 Thes. 2:13.

 

[Van]

Proclaiming obvious falsehoods, i.e. God does not corporately elect, is without merit. But yes, the election of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is personal, individual and conditional, through faith in the truth. Folks, note that the scripture cited supports my view, never the nameless doctrine.

Romans 9:9-14, God's choice is both according to His purpose, and sometimes with and/or without regard for the works of those chosen. See 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 for elections for salvation whose purpose was partially to shame others.

The corporate election, before creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), of those God's Redeemer would redeem is not at issue. The issue is scripture teaches God makes both unconditional and conditional elections, and our individual election for salvation is through faith 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[The Biblicist]

Proclaiming obvious falsehoods, i.e. God does not corporately elect, is without merit. But yes, the election of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is personal, individual and conditional, through faith in the truth. Folks, note that the scripture cited supports my view, never the nameless doctrine.

Romans 9:9-14, God's choice is both according to His purpose, and sometimes with and/or without regard for the works of those chosen. See 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 for elections for salvation whose purpose was partially to shame others.

The corporate election, before creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), of those God's Redeemer would redeem is not at issue. The issue is scripture teaches God makes both unconditional and conditional elections, and our individual election for salvation is through faith 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Election to salvation is NEVER conditional as faith is a GIFT of God rather than an inborn natural trait of the unregenerate nature. The unregenerate nature is in a state of confirmed and irreversable "enmity" with God not a state of faith or submission (Rom. 8:7). No man can come by natural ability. There must be divine intervention and therefore justifying faith cannot be regarded as natural or inherent.

Romans 9 is talking about the promise of election to salvation and Romans 9:13 utterly repudiates conditional election to salvation as it utterly repudiates corporate election to salvation.

 

[Van]

I see the opponent has devolved into absurdity, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is crystal, our election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.

Are we saved through faith, or saved and given faith? Saved through faith, thus our faith comes before our salvation (and our election for salvation) because we were chosen through faith in the truth. Pay no attention to those who deny the obvious.

 

[The Biblicist]

I see the opponent has devolved into absurdity, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is crystal, our election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.

Are we saved through faith, or saved and given faith? Saved through faith, thus our faith comes before our salvation (and our election for salvation) because we were chosen through faith in the truth. Pay no attention to those who deny the obvious.

No, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not teach our salvation is conditioned, but teaches that God has elected the means as well as the person and therefore salvation is all of grace. Salvation is inclusive of faith as a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Indeed, the very act of salvation by God is the creation of faith within the darkened heart. The "substance" and "hope" of faith (heb. 11:1) is created by God when "the light of knowledge" (2 Cor. 4:6) is revealed in the darkened heart. That "light of knowledge" is the revelation of God in the face of Jesus Christ and that "knowledge" IS eternal life (Jn. 17:3). Hence, when God empowers the gospel it becomes the creative word (1 Thes. 1:4-5) that reveals Christ in the heart, which is the substance, hope and object of faith. Faith is explicitly said to be "given" by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65) to all those whom he gives the Son, as that is what it means to "come" to the Son (Jn. 6:36-40).

Hence, 2 Thesalonians 2:13-14 is manifested in the effectual call whereby glory is secured for all the elect - 2 Thes. 2:14.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not teach our salvation is conditioned, but teaches that God has elected the means as well as the person and therefore salvation is all of grace. Salvation is inclusive of faith as a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Indeed, the very act of salvation by God is the creation of faith within the darkened heart. The "substance" and "hope" of faith (heb. 11:1) is created by God when "the light of knowledge" (2 Cor. 4:6) is revealed in the darkened heart. That "light of knowledge" is the revelation of God in the face of Jesus Christ and that "knowledge" IS eternal life (Jn. 17:3). Hence, when God empowers the gospel it becomes the creative word (1 Thes. 1:4-5) that reveals Christ in the heart, which is the substance, hope and object of faith. Faith is explicitly said to be "given" by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65) to all those whom he gives the Son, as that is what it means to "come" to the Son (Jn. 6:36-40).

Hence, 2 Thesalonians 2:13-14 is manifested in the effectual call whereby glory is secured for all the elect - 2 Thes. 2:14.

Faith cannot be inherent in the sinner or else Jesus would never say "no man CAN come to me" but would rather say "no man WILL come to me." Hence, faith originates from an outside source rather than from man's own nature. Those in John 6:64 were unbelievers "from the beginning" or false professors, proving just as Jesus continues to say they were never drawn by the Father. The Father draws "all men" without distinction of class, race or gender as proven by the "Greeks" coming to Christ in the immediate context (Jn. 12:20-32) but he does not draw all men without exception as proven by Judas and the others who were unbelievers "from the beginning" and never were drawn by the Father. "ALL" drawn by the Father are taught and the taught have learned and therefore "all" such do come (Jn. 6:45).

 

[Van]

Post #85 presents the problem. Scripture teaches we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. So we are told, the verse does not mean what it says. Does Ephesians 2:8 teach faith is a gift? Nope, the grammar excludes that possibility. Salvation is the gift, and our faith provides our access to that grace. Romans 5:2. Note, rather than presenting 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the subject is changed to a raft of other verses, none of which nullify what 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches. It is the old change the subject ploy.,

We are saved by grace through faith, thus our faith exists before we are chosen for salvation.

Did you see 2 Cor. 4:6 mentioned as if faith was in view. What is actually in view is how Paul received the pure gospel of Christ after, repeat after, he was saved. This is all they have, post a laundry list of non-germane verses and say that mean something other than what they say.

13 But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 He called you to this salvation through our gospel, so that you may possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Van]

Romans 9 in a nutshell:
1-5 Paul is sorry the nation of Israel is separated from Christ.
6-8 Israel is not made up of blood line descendants, but of believing Jews.
9-14 God's choice is always according to His purpose, sometimes with or without regard for the works of those chosen.
15-19 God chooses to have mercy of some and harden others according to His purpose.
20-21 God has the right of creator to choose some for mercy and pass over others.
22-26 God can choose from among Jews and non-Jews to have mercy.
27-29 Only a remnant of believing Jews remains, although a large number of blood line Jews are alive.
30-33 Those that believe (Jews and Gentiles) did not stumble over the snare of works based salvation, but trusted in the work of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Post #85 presents the problem. Scripture teaches we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. So we are told, the verse does not mean what it says.

The text does not say we are chosen for salvation BECAUSE OF faith in the truth. Neither does the text says we are "chosen for salvation through faith in the truth" but it says "chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth." Van is misquoting the text.

Does Ephesians 2:8 teach faith is a gift? Nope, the grammar excludes that possibility.

No, the grammar does not deny it. The action of being "saved" is a perfect tense complete action that continues in a perfected state. However, that perfected state is inclusive of "through faith" or else there is no completed action at all. Furthermore, the phrase "that not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God" speaks of the completed action as a whole "saved through faith" as there is no action of saved apart from "through faith" and so "through faith" must be grammatically included in the perfect tense completed act.

Salvation is the gift, and our faith provides our access to that grace.

Faith is equally "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) as is "saved" is "by grace" and they are inseparable as a completed action.

We are saved by grace through faith, thus our faith exists before we are chosen for salvation.

It is "saved" that is found in the perfect tense demonstrating a completed action. The prepositional phrase "through faith" means precisely that, the completed action is inseparable from faith or that action is completed "through faith" making them inseparable as a completed action.

Did you see 2 Cor. 4:6 mentioned as if faith was in view. What is actually in view is how Paul received the pure gospel of Christ after, repeat after, he was saved. This is all they have, post a laundry list of non-germane verses and say that mean something other than what they say.

2 Cor. 4:6 speaks for itself very clearly. The obvious analogy is Genesis 1:3 which shows that light did not self-appear but came into existence and dispelled darkness as a creative act of God through his spoken word. Paul realized that this creative power in the gospel was not found in him (2 Cor. 4:7) but belonged exclusively to God just as his analogy from Genesis 1:3 demonstrates.

It is metaphorical "light of knowlege" created by God by empowering the gospel as His creative word of command. That metaphorical light of knowledge is the revelation of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. He is clearly stating that the substance of faith which is in the revelation of Christ in the heart is by direct revelation from God. Jesus told Peter the very same thing - "flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee but MY FATHER which is in heaven." Paul experience the very same thing as expressed in Galatians 1:15-16. The essence of regeneration is revelation of Christ in the heart by divine fiat. That revelation is the "substance" for hope of salvation and therefore the substance of faith as well as the object of faith as a creative act of God. Jesus plainly denied that any man had inherent ability to come to Christ by faith (Jn. 6:44) and that absolute inability is why the exception clause follows "except the Father draw him." If it was not an absolute condition there would be no need of any exception clause. Therefore, faith does not originate with man and must be "given" (Jn. 6:65).

 

[Van]

LOL, more nonsense spewed as from a fire-hose. This thread is awash with twaddle.

I am charged with misquoting 2 Thess 2:13, but I quoted it in its entirety. Thus a false charge for the purpose of obfuscation.

The grammar precludes "faith" as the "gift" in view. Anyone who says otherwise is presenting fiction.

Romans 4:16 does not say or suggest faith is instilled view irresistible grace. It is another non-germane verse cited to change the subject. The verse says we receive the promise by faith because faith is in according with grace, whereas if we received the promise by works, then it would not be in accordance with grace. Pay not attention to those who rewrite scripture to pour their man-made doctrine into it.

Next we get an absurd claim that our faith does not provide our access to grace. Romans 5:2 anyone?

Finally we get a whole bunch of verbiage about 2 Corinthians 4:6, again demonstrating it has nothing to do with the topic. Paul's pure gospel and not our faith is in view. But the fire-hose continues to spew.

Salvation is the gift, and our faith provides our access to that grace. Romans 5:2. Note, rather than presenting 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the subject is changed to a raft of other verses, none of which nullify what 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches. It is the old change the subject ploy.,

We are saved by grace through faith, thus our faith exists before we are chosen for salvation.

13 But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 He called you to this salvation through our gospel, so that you may possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL, more nonsense spewed as from a fire-hose. This thread is awash with twaddle.

I am charged with misquoting 2 Thess 2:13, but I quoted it in its entirety. Thus a false charge for the purpose of obfuscation.

I see the opponent has devolved into absurdity, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is crystal, our election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth. - Van post #84

The text does not merely say "our election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth" but what it says is that we are chosen "to salvation through SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT and belief of the truth." The setting apart work by the Holy Spirit occurs first (which Van totally omits) prior to belief of the truth. Belief of the truth follows rather than precedes the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

The grammar precludes "faith" as the "gift" in view. Anyone who says otherwise is presenting fiction.

The grammar does not preclude faith as a gift but "it is a gift of God" may grammatically include the whole phrase "saved by grace through faith" as a grammatical unit. Furthermore, Jesus explicitly and clearly denies that saving faith originates with man or is inherent in man - "NO MAN CAN come to me" (Jn. 6:40). The word "can" refers to ability. Hence, the ability to come to Christ by faith must originate outside of man. Paul says that justifying faith is "of grace" and thus inclusive of being "saved BY GRACE through faith" as I will demonstrate below in the correction translation and interpretation of Romans 4:16.

Romans 4:16 does not say or suggest faith is instilled view irresistible grace. It is another non-germane verse cited to change the subject. The verse says we receive the promise by faith because faith is in according with grace, whereas if we received the promise by works, then it would not be in accordance with grace. Pay not attention to those who rewrite scripture to pour their man-made doctrine into it.

Van has condemned his own interpretation when he said, "pay no attention to those who rewrite scripture to pour their man-made doctrine into it" as he rewrites Romans 4:16 to say "faith is in according with grace" when the text actually says that faith "is OF grace" and the Greek text is "ek pisteo" which means that faith originates "OUT OF grace" and cannot possibly be translated "according with grace" and thus Van simply rewrites scripture to suite himself.

Next we get an absurd claim that our faith does not provide our access to grace. Romans 5:2 anyone?

Where in my post did I ever make that claim? Answer - nowhere. Look at my post. Another false accusation. With regard to Romans 5:2 Paul is not speaking of regeneration as he is in Ephesians 2:1,5,8 as a creative act of God (Eph. 2:10a) that precedes good works. Rather he is speaking of the post-justified life of the Christian whereby he can access God's grace to live the Christian life based upon his position of justification before God. He expounds more fully on this in Romans 6-8.

Finally we get a whole bunch of verbiage about 2 Corinthians 4:6, again demonstrating it has nothing to do with the topic. Paul's pure gospel and not our faith is in view. But the fire-hose continues to spew.

I give a careful exposition and Van's response is pure opinion or as he calls it "fire-hose....spew". He cannot dispute that Paul is drawing his analogy from Genesis 1:3 as an effectual call whereby light is created by divine fiat, as "the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" in the darkened heart is also by the effectual call of God or created by divine fiat. He cannot dispute that this knowledge by divine revelation is the "substance" of faith and the "hope" that faith is based upon. He cannot dispute that such "knowledge" by divine revelation "is eternal life" (Jn. 17:3). And so he prattles and spouts off his personal opinions based upon nothing.

Salvation is the gift, and our faith provides our access to that grace. Romans 5:2.

Simply repeating an improper interpretation does not make it a right interpretation regardless of how many times he repeats it. Again, Romans 5:2 is speaking of the Christian life not regeneration as is Ephesians 2:1,5,8,10. The "access by faith" is speaking about procuring the grace of God based upon our position or state of justification in order to live the Christian life not in order to become a Christian.

Note, rather than presenting 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the subject is changed to a raft of other verses, none of which nullify what 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches. It is the old change the subject ploy.,

No, the other scriptures are employed to further demonstrate the correct understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 as scripture is to be interpreted not merely by the immediate context but the general context of scripture as well. John 6:44 is sufficient to prove that ability to come to Christ by faith originates with God not man and with grace not works.

our faith exists before we are chosen for salvation.

And where does the Bible ever say that? Answer - nowhere - just more personal opinion and prattle. The Bible does say that "faith is the substance of things hoped for" and the Bible does say that God empowers the Gospel as a creative command to produce the very knowledge in the darkened heart which knowledge is the very "substance" of faith and the very "hope" faith embraces (2 Cor. 4:6) when the gospel does not come "in word only" but "IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT" (1 Thes. 1:5) and that is the meaning of "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" in 2 Thes. 2:13. "Belief of the truth" is the consequence not the cause of "sanctification of the Spirit." "Santification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" is the salvation we are chosen unto and it is this combination of the Holy Spirit creating faith in the truth within us that is the effectual calling by God unto obtaining glory (2 Thes. 2:14).

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul has just declared that God works all things together for the good of those who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). That purpose is then spelled out in Romans 8:29-32 for the called who are specifically identified as "the elect."

In Romans 9 Paul anticipates an objection to God's effectual purpose of redemption.If God is working all things for the good of his elect then how do you explain God's purpose for Israel as the elect nation of God and their rejection of Christ? Paul's answers this anticipated objection in Romans 9-11.

Paul first asserts that God does have an elective purpose for the salvation of Israel - (Rom. 9:1-5) and their present unbelief in Christ does not alter that promise or make it of non-effect (Rom. 9:6a). He then defines the proper understanding of God's purpose of election (Rom. 9:6b-13). Election of Israel does not mean that God will save every natural born Jew, as not all natural born Jews are of the promised elect Israel that God purposed to save. Elect Israel consists only of Jews who have been twice born, or Jews who have been supernaturally born by God as typified by Isaac rather than only natural born Jews as typified by Ishmael (Rom. 9:6b-9).Second, the promise refers only to Jews who have been individually chosen by God based upon unconditional election before they were ever physically born into this world as typified by Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:10-13). Thus God's promise to Israel is inclusive only of twice born Jews who individually are unconditionally elected by God.

Now in Romans 9:14-11:28 Paul anticipates objections to what he has just taught. Now, consider the kind of objections that he anticipates. Are these objections that would characterize the Calvinist position of election or the Arminian position of election? The objections anticipated are as follows:

1. Unconditional election makes God unjust - vv. 14-18
2. Unconditional election makes God the author of sin - vv. 19-23
3. Unconditional election is only a Jewish thing - vv. 24-26
4. Unconditional election of unrighteous Gentiles does not make sense over Jews who follow after righteousness - 9:27-10:13
5. Unconditional election does not harmonize with the preaching of the gospel - Rom. 10:14-21
6. Unconditional election does not accomplish the promise that "all Israel" shall be saved but only results in a 'remnant" of Israel being saved - Rom. 11

Does the anticipated objector sound like a Calvinist or an Arminian? For example, let us consider the first anticipated objection:

Rom. 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

He just said that Jacob was chosen by God according to God's purpose of election before he was born and not based upon either good or bad foreseen behavior. He just concluded that such a predestinated election demonstrates God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Now, whose theology would cause them to respond that kind of unconditional election makes God unrighteous - unjust? Would a Calvinist respond that way or would an Arminian?

What is Paul's response? His immediate response is "God forbid" or no, unconditional election or particular redemptive love does not make God unjust. He then defends that response in Romans 9:15-18.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Instead of backing down from unconditional elective love, he defends it by basically saying God can love whom he wills and he can reject whom he wills and election is not condition upon him "that willeth or him that runneth" but is wholly based upon God's mercy and mercy cannot be demanded or it ceases to be mercy. Therefore unconditional election is not a matter of justice but a matter of mercy. What does that mean? It means that mankind is considered as condemned already as sinners and all of mankind justly deserves God's wrath and election is an act of God's mercy which cannot be demanded by any sinner.

He then gives Pharoah as an example of one who deserved justice and got exactly what he deserved rather than mercy and God determined to exercise justice upon Pharoah rather than mercy because Pharoah was condemned already as a sinner and his response manifested that sinful condition. This whole argument of unconditional election is based upon the assumption that man is already in a fallen condition and justly deserves God's wrath and election is an act of God's mercy which He can sovereignly bestow upon whom he wills without being unjust to those he does not bestow it.

It may help to understand the hardening of Pharoah's heart by this illustration. It is the same sun that shines upon butter and clay. The sun hardens the clay and melts the butter. The difference is not in the sun but in the natures of clay and butter. Sinners apart from God's mercy are always hardened when exposed to God and his light. Hence, the more Pharoah who is a sinner by nature, and thus one who is by nature at enmity with God and not subject to the law of God is exposed to God and his light, he will always freely respond by hardening against God. In contrast, one who is the object of God's unconditional elective regenerative mercy will freely respond by softening or submitting to God. Thus the human will operates freely within the boundaries of its own nature. Not even God's will or volition can operate contrary to his own nature. For example he "cannot lie" as that is contrary to his own holy nature. Sinful man cannot submit to God (Rom. 8:7) because it is contrary to their own sinful nature but their will operates freely within the boundaries of their nature just as freely as God's own will operates within the boundaries of his own nature.
(Continued)

Repetition is the best teacher.

 

[Van]

LOL yet again. We are awash with unbiblical nonsense once again. Here for the third time:

13 But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 He called you to this salvation through our gospel, so that you may possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This passage says we had faith in the truth before we were chosen, thus a conditional election.

Again, Epheisans 2:8 does not say our faith in Christ was instilled by irresistible grace, it says our salvation was a gift through faith. Anyone who says otherwise is presenting fiction.

Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, (NASB)
Romans 4:16 That is why it depends on faith (ESV)
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith (NET)
Romans 4:16 Because of this, it is by faith (LEB)
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith (NKJV)

The best was to translated the phrase "ek pisteos" is "based on faith." So the action is based on faith so that it is in accordance with grace.

Here is the whole verse: For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

We are saved by grace through faith, thus our faith precedes receiving saving grace. Romans 5:2 says our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand.

It is a lock folks, our election for salvation was through faith, thus a conditional election. None of the verses cited one after another detract, challenge, or conflict with this obvious truth.

 

[Van]

Here is what Romans 9 is teaching in outline form:
1-5 Paul is sorry the nation of Israel is separated from Christ.
6-8 Israel is not made up of blood line descendants, but of believing Jews.
9-14 God's choice is always according to His purpose, sometimes with or without regard for the works of those chosen.
15-19 God chooses to have mercy of some and harden others according to His purpose.
20-21 God has the right of creator to choose some for mercy and pass over others.
22-26 God can choose from among Jews and non-Jews to have mercy.
27-29 Only a remnant of believing Jews remains, although a large number of blood line Jews are alive.
30-33 Those that believe (Jews and Gentiles) did not stumble over the snare of works based salvation, but trusted in the work of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL yet again. We are awash with unbiblical nonsense once again. Here for the third time:

This passage says we had faith in the truth before we were chosen, thus a conditional election.

It says no such thing in English or Greek! The preposition translated "through" is "en" not "dia" and it would require "dia" or some other preposition denoting cause (e.g. hina, etc.) to support your opinion. So you are just making up things as you go. Furthermore, "to salvation" is eis with the accusative case showing that this is objective of being chosen whereas, "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" is part of another prepositional phrase ("en").The Greek preposition eis is a preposition of motion whereas the Greek preposition en is one of rest. God's has chosen us from the beginning "eis" salvation as the terminating point of his elective action. However, "en" defines the sphere in which this salvation is realized. It is realized by the sanctifying or work of the Spirit setting the chosen apart and in the belief of the truth. The whole prepositional phrase "en agiasmo pneumatos kai pistei aletheias" is merely explanatory of "salvation" which terminates the action of being chosen, and then the preposition of rest "en" defines the nature of that salvation that we are chosen unto. Therefore, in reality since we are chosen to salvation, meaning we are chosen to be sanctified by the Spirit and belief of the truth. So we are not chosen because of faith but we are chosen unto faith. At any rate, Paul does not use "dia" or any other verb of cause (hoti, etc.) which would be necessary to sustain your interpretation that he is saying we are chosen "because of" faith. You are wrong both grammatically and theologically.

Again, Epheisans 2:8 does not say our faith in Christ was instilled by irresistible grace, it says our salvation was a gift through faith. Anyone who says otherwise is presenting fiction.

What you are saying is oxmoronic. If salvation is a gift but the means through which it is given is works that is oxymoronic and nulifies it as a gift altogether. John 6:44 denies faith is human in origin as Jesus plainly denies man "can" come to him. Moreover, your interpretation of Romans 4:16 is wrong for many reasons.

Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, (NASB)
Romans 4:16 That is why it depends on faith (ESV)
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith (NET)
Romans 4:16 Because of this, it is by faith (LEB)
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith (NKJV)

You forget that the overall context is contrasting faith with works and the only other alternative provided in contrast to works is grace. Hence, if "by faith" it cannot be of works and must be of grace as there is no other alternative offered by Paul in this context or any other context where faith is found in the context of initial salvation (e.g. Eph.2:8-9).

Furthermore, "hina kata charin" is a purpose clause as demanded by the preposition "hina" which denotes purpose. So the Greek phrase "ek pisteo hina kata charin" can only mean in this context that the promise of inheritance must have its source in faith FOR THE PURPOSE that it might be by grace instead of by works.

Faith does not precede grace but is of grace because faith is not of works. Faith is of grace and thus a gift of God because it is not inherent in human nature as Jesus explicitly says "no man can". So faith does not originate with man or works and the only other possible alternative to man is Go and the only other possible alternative to works is grace and so your theory is not only grammatically false but theologically false.

 

[The Biblicist]

I made some typo mistakes in the last post so I have corrected them in red print below:

It says no such thing in English or Greek! The preposition translated "through" is "en" not "dia" and it would require "dia" or some other preposition denoting cause (e.g. hina, etc.) to support your opinion. So you are just making up things as you go. Furthermore, "to salvation" is eis with the accusative case showing that salvation is the terminating point of the action of being chosen, whereas, "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" is part of another prepositional phrase ("en").The Greek preposition eis is a preposition of motion whereas the Greek preposition en is one of rest. God's has chosen us from the beginning "eis"(to) salvation as the terminating point of his elective action. However, "en" defines the sphere in which this salvation is realized. It is realized by the sanctifying or work of the Spirit setting the chosen apart in the belief of the truth. The whole prepositional phrase "en agiasmo pneumatos kai pistei aletheias" is merely explanatory of "salvation" which is the terminating point of the action of being chosen, and then the preposition of rest "en" defines the nature of that salvation that we are chosen unto. Therefore, in reality since we are chosen to salvation, meaning we are chosen to be sanctified by the Spirit in belief of the truth. So we are not chosen because of faith but we are chosen unto faith. At any rate, Paul does not use "dia" or any other preposition of cause (hoti, etc.) which would be necessary to sustain your interpretation that he is saying we are chosen "because of" faith. You are wrong both grammatically and theologically.





What you are saying is oxmoronic. If salvation is a gift but the means through which it is given is works that is oxymoronic and nulifies it as a gift altogether because works and grace cannot be mixed (Rom. 11:6). John 6:44 denies faith is human in origin as Jesus plainly denies man "can" come to him. Moreover, your interpretation of Romans 4:16 is wrong for many reasons.



You forget that the overall context is contrasting faith with works and the only other alternative provided in contrast to works is grace. Hence, if "by faith" it cannot be of works and must be of grace as there is no other alternative offered by Paul in this context or any other context where faith is found in the context of initial salvation (e.g. Eph.2:8-9).

Furthermore, "hina kata charin" is a purpose clause as demanded by the preposition "hina" which denotes purpose. So the Greek phrase "ek pisteo hina kata charin" can only mean in this context that the promise of inheritance must have its source in faith FOR THE PURPOSE that it might be by grace instead of by works.

Faith does not precede grace but is of grace because faith is not of works. Faith is of grace and thus a gift of God because it is not inherent in human nature as Jesus explicitly says "no man can". So faith does not originate with man or works and the only other possible alternative to man is Go and the only other possible alternative to works is grace and so your theory is not only grammatically false but theologically false.

 

[Van]

More bogus nonsense spewed again and again. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 is crystal, we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election.

And pay no attention to the Greek grammar nonsense, "en" is used to show instrumentality, and is commonly translated as "by" or 'through" or "by means of" or "with."

Salvation is the gift in view in Ephesians 2:8, not faith.

In the phrase "saved by grace through faith" faith precedes grace. Romans 5:2

 

[The Biblicist]

And pay no attention to the Greek grammar nonsense, "en" is used to show instrumentality, and is commonly translated as "by" or 'through" or "by means of" or "with."

Salvation is the gift in view in Ephesians 2:8, not faith.

In the phrase "saved by grace through faith" faith precedes grace. Romans 5:2

Faith is either of grace or of works but is surely is not of man - Jn. 6:40 "no man can" so which is it Van? Of grace or of works. I think you have answered this clearly when you say it is "your faith" and does not come from God and so you believe we are justified by faith =works and saved by faith= works. because you deny it is of grace.

 

[Van]

Good grief, I have addressed that our faith is not works, but is in accordance with grace. Stop repeating twaddle.

John 6:40 is non-germane. More smoke to obfuscate.

Did I say our faith does not come from God? Nope, so yet another slanderous fiction.

Did I say we are justified by works? Nope, so yet another slanderous fiction.

 

[The Biblicist]

Good grief, I have addressed that our faith is not works, but is in accordance with grace. Stop repeating twaddle.

Alright Van, I will take that as an affirmative that you believe faith is of grace rather than of works.

John 6:40 is non-germane. More smoke to obfuscate.

You know it is not "non-germane" as it is an explicit denial that ability (Gr.dunamos) to come to Christ originate with man and that it originates with God, regardless how you may explain it.

Did I say our faith does not come from God? Nope, so yet another slanderous fiction.

Alright Van, I will take that as an affirmative that you believe faith does come from God and not from man.

Did I say we are justified by works? Nope, so yet another slanderous fiction.

Alright Van, I will take that as an affirmative that you deny we are justified by works and so you believe we are justified by grace and thus the phrase "justified by faith" is snyonmous with "justified by grace."