Featured Romans 9 Isn't What You Think It Is

arbitrary synonym - Search (bing.com)

 

Then your complaint (God is not arbitrary) is summed up in v 14:

11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
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. Ro 9

 

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that such a thing exists
that you are referring to, as "free will",
(that has anything to do with How God Grants Eternal Salvation),
if you believed the Bible.

See here, where kyredneck quoted the utter impossibility of that notion;

It has always been of interest to me,
in having observed the occurrences where heretics
use the word, "explicitly", when stating things like,
"The scripture itself explicitly says", as to how that kind of talk
seems to be uncanny in itself at pinpointing the most specific
'principal determinant', which has led to their egregious errors.

In this case, going to seed all the way around the barn mindlessly
as if Romans 9 isn't talking about "(...the children being not yet born,"),
Jacob and Esau, "in thy womb", of Rebekah, which
"shall be separated from thy bowels", as the Bible says, and
that "It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger",
with some rash shortsighted suggestion that there is no way it could
and that it could not be a possible interpretation of these two boys
and all of the related contextual references to election, etc.,
to be containing A Divine Message regarding them and
the subjects of election as specifically referring to individuals,
regardless of what other application may be illustrated by them, also.

That is a very odd thing to come up with and try to say.

Context from the previous chapter; Romans 8:27;

"And He who searches our hearts
knows the mind of the Spirit,
because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Ephesians 1:3–14)

28 "And we know that God works all things together
for the good of those who love Him,
who are called according to His purpose.

29 "For those God foreknew, He also predestined
to be conformed to the image of His Son,
so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

30 "And those He predestined, He also called;
those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.

31 "What then shall we say in response to these things?
If God is for us, who can be against us?

32 "He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all,
how will He not also, along with Him, freely give us all things?

33 "Who will bring any charge against God’s elect?"

 

"...foreseeing an objection, he (Paul) prevents it, which might be made,
that if the Jews were cast off, the promise of God to that people
that he would be their God, would become void,
and the preaching the Gospel of Christ to them of no effect;"

(Alan's note:
Not that The Immutable God could ever be said to "change His Mind".)

"to which he answers
by distinguishing between Israel and Israel,
or the elect of God among them, and those that were not;

"wherefore though
the latter (those who were not elected) were rejected
according to the purpose of God,
the promise and preaching of the word
had their effect in the former, (God chosen elect, from Eternity Past,
within who's souls, "the word of God hath taken"..."effect")
Romans 9:6, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.
For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

"and that there was such
a distinction, between Israel and Israel,
he proves from the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael,
who were both Abraham's seed;
yet one was a child of promise, (Isaac was God's chosen elect)
and the other a child of the flesh, (those who were not elected)
and were emblematical
of the children of the promise, (God's chosen elect)
and the children of the flesh among that people; (those not elected)
Romans 9:7, "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham,
are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called."

"and further confirms this by the instance of Jacob and Esau,
who were born of the same parents, and were twins;
and yet one was in the favour of God, (Jacob was God's chosen elect)
and the other not; (Esau was not elected)

"and that this was owing not to works,
but to the Sovereign Will of God in election,

"he proves by observing that
this (elect made by God, in Eternity Past)
was before good or evil were done by either of them, Romans 9:11,
"(For the children being not yet born,
neither having done any good or evil,
that the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth"

"and that this was notified to Rebekah before, Romans 9:12,
"It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger."

as appears from a passage in Genesis 25:23,
"And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb,
and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;
and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;
and the elder shall serve the younger."

and by another passage in Malachi 1:2,3;
"I have loved you, saith the LORD.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste
for the dragons of the wilderness."

which is cited, Romans 9:13;
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Commentary adapted from: Romans 9 Gill's Exposition

 

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.

 

Now we will wait for the response "you do not understand calvinism". They just hate it when you use their own words to show how illogical their view is. But it has been predetermined for them to think that way. No independent thought allowed.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. Perhaps there's a problem with your reading comprehension. Your reply against God is answered back in vv 15-16. (actually more ).

 

That is the logical outcome of their theology and yet they will deny this to their dying breath. The truth is they can not know if there were actually one of the "chosen/elect" they can only hope. Even their faith has to be given to them.

 

Good!
The typeology that is presented here is dependent on believing the words of the OT concerning Israel,.God from Cain and Abel Japheth and Shem, Ishmael and Isaac, Israel and the church has been trying to teach us that the firstborn is of the flesh and cannot have an intimate relationship with God. One must be "born of the Spirit of God" and become a "son" of God. Then there is the first Adam and the last Adam. He is bringing out the application of the typeology as it pertains to his own people.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (explanation next)

Ishmael was born of Abraham by Hagar but they were not the children of God. The member of the trinity whom Abraham typified.was God the Father.

Genesis 22:2
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.


8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh (of Hagar), these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Galatians 5:17
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Even Isaac was born of the flesh but whom he typified, Jesus Christ, did not walk after the flesh.

Israel (typified by Sarah) must have this son because of the Abrahamic Covenant that promises salvation to the whole world.

Here is the order in Genesis.

Abraham = God the Father
Isaac = God the son
Jacob = The Spirit and from whom the family were generated.

The above is the trinity functioning as the trinity in the NT in type.

Calvinists do not even have a clue how they are aiding the adversary of hiding these wonderful truths. One must think like God thinks to have sound doctrine.

My advice for all reformation believers:
Get a KJV Bible and have a better opportunity to learn sound doctrine. It is a spiritual book and it was not the first English translation, thank God.

John 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The will of God is for every individual to bow the knee to God and believe on Jesus Christ who died as our substitute, atoning for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day and is alive forevemore. Not everyone believes this.

 

Good Grief!

Well, I thought you made some good points in your post I quoted. I sure didn't register any disagreement with your argument. I don't know how old you are but you present yourself as a child. Not everything that someone says to you is an attempt to provoke a fight with you. My purpose of quoting your post was to springboard off of it to make the typology points which I think are essential to track Paul's thinking in these chapters.

You have some personality quirks that you would do well to work on, IMO.

 

They even have medicine for that I hear.

 

Winner! I've thought the same. @CJP69 comes across as very immature, full of himself. I've cautioned him of this before.