Featured Romans 9 Isn't What You Think It Is

Yes, Edom served Israel, that IS a bigger picture in this, but Romans 9 is concerned with INDIVIDUAL vessels.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but,O m an, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

 

I think this one just needs to grow up.

 

"Wherefore, whether men are elected or no is not that which God calls any immediately to be conversant about. Faith, obedience, holiness, are the inseparable fruits. effects, and consequences of election, as hath been proved before. See Eph. 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13;Tit.1:1; Acts 13:48. In whomsoever these things are wrought, he is obliged, according to the method of God and the gospel, to believe his own election." John Owen.

Now for those of you who believe that the elect are those who believe or will believe please explain to me how Owen's explanation is deficient from your own. The only difference I see is that you insist that it was you, and your own free will that gets you there whereas the Calvinists believe that it was your own free will that is the problem in the first place and a work of the Spirit was needed upon your will.

 

Correct, to say that a soul can obtain salvation by their will, is irrelevant,
since when God's revelation to Mankind
is that salvation is "not of him that wills",
would be entirely illogical, irrational, insane, and anti-Christ.

 

The problem is that as a calvinist you can never know if you are saved until you die and either are in heaven or hell. As calvinists' say they had nothing to do with their salvation God even had to give them faith. So calvinists have no basis to honestly say they know they are saved. The best you can do is count on your good works and hope it is enough.

Now for those of us that say we choose to trust in Christ via our free will we can know the certainty of our salvation. We are told the gospel is the power of God to salvation for all that believe. And those that hear and believe the gospel will be saved. If we confess and believe we will be saved. Need I go on?

The calvinists will refer to scripture but deny what it says.
Eph 1:4 tells us we were chosen in Christ to be what? That we should be holy and without blame before Him, that we should be adopted but you need to keep reading to see how that happens. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, {then what happens} you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

2Th 2:13 shows us the same thing. God chose us from the beginning for salvation, {how} through belief in the truth.

Tit 1:1 Tells us that those of faith are God's elect. It does not say what they believed just that they do.

Act 13:48 When you look at the context you see that the gentiles had heard the gospel message and those that believed were saved.
Calvinists treat Act_13:48 as if it contains the phrase by God when it does not and they interpret it irrespective of Act_13:46 which sets the contextual tone.

So yes we see free will in the bible and we see that one is saved by God when one trusts in His risen Son.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,. Salvation is the gift that only God can give and He gives that gift to those that believe.

Calvinist require God to save people before they believe and then He has to give them faith. That is not biblical. The question calvinists have to answer is, when is one born of the Spirit, before or after they believe?

You ask where Owen's explanation is deficient. The problem is that Owen's explanation is deficient from the bible. Faith is not the consequence of election, one is only elect when they are in Christ through faith. Owen has put the cart before the horse so to speak.

 

Man can not save himself but God has said that He will save those that trust in Him.
Or have you forgotten
Romans 1:16 "...the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes..."
Romans 10:13 "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

 

What he was saying was that election is not worth speculation as to whether it applies to you unless you believe, which is no less than you claim. In the same section he said that if you don't believe then election is of no concern to you either. It is your lack of faith that is your concern. I want to know what exactly your scheme of salvation adds to that. To me it looks the same. Given that election has no meaning to you since it doesn't occur until after you have faith, why would you be so against someone who said that election has nothing to do with you until you are a believer? How much difference is there in a practical sense. He is saying that the only evidence you have that you are elect is that you believe and you are starting to do what born again folks do. How could you possibly be against that?

 

Read what he said again, "Faith, obedience, holiness, are the inseparable fruits. effects, and consequences of election" He has put election prior to faith. Not a biblical position. If we follow your logic we have Owen speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

You referred to Owen's comment said "In the same section he {Owen} said that if you don't believe then election is of no concern to you either." But him being a calvinist would conclude that if one did not believe it was because they were not of the "elect" from before the foundation of the world so why would election be of concern to them.

As you said "He is saying that the only evidence you have that you are elect is that you believe" But that does not indicate when a person believes so we have to go by what he said Faith is the consequence of election.

You asked "How much difference is there in a practical sense." It is the difference between free will and determinism. One either responds to the gospel and trusts in God for their salvation or God has saved them then gives them faith to believe. One is biblical the other is not. Eph 1:13, Eph 2:8, Rom 10:9-10

And lest you think I am misstating the calvinist position
“A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved”. [L. Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Page 75]

You can clear up your view by answering a simple question: when is one born of the Spirit, before or after they believe?

 

No. He concludes that refusing to believe is the greatest sin and insult to God that man is capable of. You don't get to determine what Owen has to believe since he explained it himself.

 

Individual vessels predestinated and elected from both the Jews and the Gentiles is not eisegeses, it's good reading comprehension, evidently something you lack.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but,O m an, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

 

God's Children Are Redeemed Because They Are His Children | Page 2 | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

That post was a direct quote from Owen. You have developed a straw man argument based on what you wished Owen had said. The fact is Calvinists like Owen believe God accomplishes his purpose and plan without violating the free will of men.

Actually I do. It revolves around your concept of what "free will" is. And this is in agreement with Calvinists like Owen and top Arminian theologians too. There is more common ground than you think. I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in limited atonement and I believe grace is resisted but I would not give up the benefits of reading Owen and the Puritans for the world. Or Wesley, for that matter.

 

Then again neither do you, I quoted his words are you now going to say he did not say them? Owen did explain his position clearly in plain English. Election first then faith or do you have a different understanding of those words of his you quoted?

""Faith, obedience, holiness, are the inseparable fruits. effects, and consequences of election" His words Dave the consequence of election is faith. In other words election comes first then faith. Which is the same as Boettner says “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved”. [L. Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Page 75]

Are you saying these two men do not understand calvinism or misstated the calvinist doctrine?

But you still did not answer the question, when is one born of the Spirit, before or after they believe?

 

I say at the same time or right after you believe. Owen said at the same time.

Why does the concept that God is allowed to decide something in the future and then accomplish it bother you so much? If God says something will happen just because it really will happen does not mean that it didn't happen in reality. The people that come to faith in Christ are elect. It doesn't ruin anything except your own control over the situation if election was before you believed. You are not the captain of your own fate. Although I will say that indeed I believe you can possibly mess this all up and in the negative sense maybe you are. But even though I am not a Calvinist to that extent I have to admit that if God's grace is necessary then you could say if you are saved it was indeed "effectual" in you. Then the door is open to all the rest. It's just not as simple as you want to make it.

 

God says no such thing.

The two boys came out of her womb, and from the two boys came in the future, two nations. Esau came first, then Jacob, and so the nation from Esau (the older) did serve the nation from Jacob (the younger).

You can claim nothing is said about the boys, such as the older will serve the young till the cows come home, but you cannot nullify God's word. The nation from the older boy Esau will serve the nation from the younger boy Jacob. ​

Nowhere is God word does God say Romans 9 is not talking about the nations from the two BOYS!!!!