Armenian view of Romans 9?

[Todd]

Right on Yelsew! I didn't read all the posts listed with this string, but I do hope that this issue has been addressed: the foreknowledge of God. My Calvinistic friends always want to talk about God's election, calling, predestination, foreordaining, etc., but I don't find very many of them that want to mention God's foreknowledge. Yet, Paul clearly stated that foreknowledge precedes all the aforementioned salvific works of God. (see Rom. 8:29)

The only way that Romans 9 can be interpreted appropriately is by remembering the proper salvific order of Romans 8. Our Calvinist friends could be spared from many debased theological conclusions if they would keep that in mind. And no, foreknowledge does not mean that God simply knew who He would elect, but it must also include his exhaustive knowledge of who would receive Him. If one's view of foreknowledge does not include both of those elements, then they have no reply to very clear passages like 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9. If a stuanch Calvinstic view of Romans 9 is held by someone, then they believe in a contradictory God - one that wills that no man should perish, yet created humans who could never be saved because of God's own purposes! Thanks Yelsew for making this clear.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Romans 11 says that the rejection of the Jews is not final and that God will again show the nation mercy.

You make it sound as if those who are hardened in Romans 9 have no hope of salvation, but that the nation as a whole sometime in the future will again be shown mercy. Go back and read Romans 11 again and you will clearly see that Paul fully expects that some of those currently hardened to be provoked to jealousy and believe. This is not just some reference to something happening in the distant future. How do I know? Because he says, "that I may save some." He fully expected to be apart of it.

How are non-elect people saved? Can it happen? NO. Yet, the non-elect people of Romans 9 are talked about having an opportunity for salvation in Romans 10 and 11. You refuse to deal with that because you know it contradicts your system.

BTW, where does Jealousy fit into irrestable grace? Jealousy is a motivator of man's will, not God's. So how might Jealousy play a role in saving the lost, is the irrestiable calling of the Holy Spirit not enough, so God had to send Jealousy too? Please explain.

 

[Yelsew2]

Irrestibility

That which you cannot see, a power, such as the Holy Spirit. Man has developed many ways to resist that which he can see, but there is no way to resist the Holy Spirit, and very little that one can do to resist the spirit of evil.

However, once one becomes aware that a spirit is "working on him", he finds out what the spirit is trying to do, then it is possible for man to resist the spirit, even the HOLY SPIRIT, buy REFUSING to obey! Obedience is the original sin! Disobedience is the sin nature of man!

Incidentally, Jealousy is something that God is fully capable of, for scriptures tell us God said "I am a jealous God!"

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Yelsew2:

Incidentally, Jealousy is something that God is fully capable of, for scriptures tell us God said "I am a jealous God!"

I didn't say he wasn't capable of it. I was speaking of the role of Jealousy within salvation. Romans 10-11 and the reference in the OT dealing with the Jewish being provoked to Jealousy and saved has nothing to do with God's jealousy. I'm wanting to get a Calvinist to tell me how this jealousy fits within their system.

 

[Ransom]

Yelsew said:

Sadly most won't, but those who do become the children of God, "the elect".

Exactly backward. The children of God do not become the elect. The elect become the children of God:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will . . . (Eph. 1:3-5, emphasis mine)

Faith is not a work of man but a condition of man's spirit!

The reason men have faith at all is because it is given to them. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

 

[Ransom]

Todd said:

If a stuanch Calvinstic view of Romans 9 is held by someone, then they believe in a contradictory God - one that wills that no man should perish, yet created humans who could never be saved because of God's own purposes!

No more contradictory than the Bible itself is. Shall we examine Paul's own example?

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. (Rom. 9:17-18)

Compare:

And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, `Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'" (Exod. 4:21-23)

Did God approve of the fact that Pharaoh was enslaving his children? No. And yet he actually, intentionally hardened Pharaoh's heart so Pharaoh would refuse to let Israel go. Why? For the sake of his own reputation. He would drive Pharaoh to let them go, but for his own purposes he was not going to do that unless his power was made manifest, his people vindicated, the Egyptians ruined, and their false gods blasphemed. God could have laid Pharaoh flat with one punch; instead he grabbed him by the collar and repeatedly pummeled his nose into his skull, just to drive home the point that God was in charge and Pharaoh was a nobody.

Contradictory? You tell me.

Another example:

Then Judah said to his brothers, "What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ish'maelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh." And his brothers heeded him. (Gen. 37:26-27)

As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Gen. 50:20)

Did God approve of Joseph's brothers kidnapping him and selling him into slavery? Certainly not: "Whoever steals a man, whether he sells him or is found in possession of him, shall be put to death" (Exod. 21:16). Yet their sin was the means God chose to put Joseph in charge in Egypt so that Israel would be preserved from starvation and built into a strong nation. That is what God intended. He planned it that way.

Contradictory? You tell me.

Loath to multiply examples needlessly, let me add one more:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:22-23)

[T]hey lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, `Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:24-28)

I don't know if you can get any more explicit than this: God's will and God's plan, side by side in the very same passage.

Did God approve of the murder of Jesus? Absolutely not. Caiaphas and Pilate are called lawless and raging, because "[t]hou shalt not kill" (Exod. 20:13). The crucifixion of the Son of God was without a doubt the most wicked crime ever perpetrated by mankind. And yet without this heinous act, all men are totally without hope since Christ's death on the cross provides the only basis by which sins can be forgiven without violating God's justice. Right there in black and white it says: This was God's purpose all along. He planned it that way.

Contradictory? You tell me.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ransom:
[QB]

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will . . . (Eph. 1:3-5, emphasis mine)

Notice what this verse does not say. It does not say, "God chose only us to be saved before the foundation of the world." It says he chose us in him before the foundation of the world TO BE HOLY AND BLAMELESS." and he predestined us to be adopted as his sons. This has not been completed in Paul's life when he wrote this and its not be completed in our life, its something that is destined to happen to us who believe. Belief comes first. This verse only tells us what God has destined for believers. It says nothing about him predestining who those believers would be.

 

[Yelsew2]

Ransom,

Yelsew said:

Sadly most won't, but those who do become the children of God, "the elect".

Exactly backward. The children of God do not become the elect. The elect become the children of God:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will . . . (Eph. 1:3-5, emphasis mine)

Well as always Ransom, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING! The context is verses 3 through 14. What you posted to support your doctrine of election is Paul's description of his own relationship with the Christ. Each of the Apostles were chosen personally by God, and Paul was recruited in a most unique manner. But that is only part of the story, so for the rest of the story lets look at the rest of the story where Paul tells the Ephesians what their relationship with the Christ is

Eph 1:13,14 "Now you too, in him, have heard the message of the truth and the gospel of your salvation, and having put your trust in it you have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit of the Promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, for the freedom of the people whom God has taken for his own, for the praise of his glory.

Don't you find that simply fascinating? Paul declares his own relationship with the Christ, then tells the Ephesians their position and even tells them how it came to be. ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING how easy it is to refute false doctrine!

Continuing with Yelsew2's words

Faith is not a work of man but a condition of man's spirit!

to which Ransom replied

The reason men have faith at all is because it is given to them. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

Well sir, neither "grace" nor "faith" is the gift of God in the quoted scripture. Salvation is the gift of God to those who believe in him, even on his name. That is the consistent Gospel story! That is God's plan of Salvation!

 

[Ransom]

Skandelon said:

It does not say, "God chose only us to be saved before the foundation of the world." It says he chose us in him before the foundation of the world TO BE HOLY AND BLAMELESS." and he predestined us to be adopted as his sons.

Yelsew said:

What you posted to support your doctrine of election is Paul's description of his own relationship with the Christ. Each of the Apostles were chosen personally by God, and Paul was recruited in a most unique manner.

Ha!

You guys crack me up. I think I'll start calling you the ABC Gang, for Anything But Calvinism. You'll even fall all over each other, as long as the Comfortable Doctrine of the Almighty Human Free Will is preserved.

Tell you what, guys. Why don't you get your heads together and decide whether "election" is to apostleship or to certain privileges once one has chosen to follow Christ. When you've settled what the doctrine actually is, then I'll refute it.

After all, I wouldn't want half the forum Arminians accusing me of arguing against a straw man.

 

[Yelsew2]

Ransom, Take a good look at Ephesians 1:1-14. Here it is for you. I've removed the verse separations so that it will flow as if Paul is speaking the words.

Ephesians 1: 1,2. Paul, by the will of God an apostle of Christ Jesus, to God's holy people, faithful in Christ Jesus. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here Paul establishes the fact that God chose the Apostles "by the will of God" an apostle of Christ Jesus. Then he continues

Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all the spiritual blessings of heaven in Christ. Thus he chose us in Christ before the world was made to be holy and faultless before him in love, marking us out for himself beforehand, to be adopted sons, through Jesus Christ. Such was his purpose and good pleasure, to the praise of the glory of his grace, his free gift to us in the Beloved, in whom, through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins. Such is the richness of the grace which he has showered on us in all wisdom and insight. He has let us (who is the us?...the apostles. To whom else did Jesus reveal...) know the mystery of his purpose, according to his good pleasure which he determined beforehand in Christ, for him to act upon when the times had run their course: that he would bring everything together under Christ, as head, everything in the heavens and everything on earth. And it is in him that we have received our heritage, marked out beforehand as we were, under the plan of the One who guides all things as he decides by his own will, chosen to be, for the praise of his glory, the people who would put their hopes in Christ before he came.

Up to here, Paul is talking of himself and the other Apostles. What follows is Paul speaking of the Ephesian believers.

13.14. Now you too, in him, have heard the message of the truth and the gospel of your salvation, and having put your trust in it you have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit of the Promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, for the freedom of the people whom God has taken for his own, for the praise of his glory.

13 and 14 is directed to and and is about those to whom He is writing.

Please note what he says. 'You have heard the message of truth, and believed it and put your trust in it!' Therefore you have been stamped with the seal of the "HS of the promise". Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God! This was written to those who have heard and believed. This letter is an explaination of Jesus for the people of Ephesus for all times.

 

[Ransom]

Yelsew2 has just argued that the proper antecedent of the pronoun "us" in Ephesians 1:1-14 is not Paul and his readers, but the apostles. Let's apply that reasoning consistently throughout the passage and see if the argument holds water.

Eph. 1:1-14 in the Yelsew Revised Version:

Paul, by the will of God an apostle of Christ Jesus, to God's holy people, faithful in Christ Jesus. Grace and peace to you from God the apostles' Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Blessed be God the Father of the apostles' Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed the apostles with all the spiritual blessings of heaven in Christ. Thus he chose the apostles in Christ before the world was made to be holy and faultless before him in love, marking the apostles out for himself beforehand, to be adopted sons, through Jesus Christ. Such was his purpose and good pleasure, to the praise of the glory of his grace, his free gift to the apostles in the Beloved, in whom, through his blood, the apostles gain their freedom, the forgiveness of their sins. Such is the richness of the grace which he has showered on the apostles in all wisdom and insight. He has let the apostles know the mystery of his purpose, according to his good pleasure which he determined beforehand in Christ, for him to act upon when the times had run their course: that he would bring everything together under Christ, as head, everything in the heavens and everything on earth. And it is in him that the apostles have received our heritage, marked out beforehand as the apostles were, under the plan of the One who guides all things as he decides by his own will, chosen to be, for the praise of his glory, the people who would put their hopes in Christ before he came.

Well, it sure doesn't sound like any interpretation of Ephesians I've ever heard, from anyone.

OK . . . I've had enough pussyfooting around with you guys on this passage. Since I joined this thread, I have asked for an exegesis of Romans 9 that would defend the Arminian view.

"Uh . . . erm . . . go read Clarke," you said.

But when I pointed out what I consider to be a fatal weakness to Clarke's exposition . . . silence.

Challenged to provide my own interpretation of Romans 9, I did so. Have I received even a word of interaction with my exegesis? Not one. You and Skandelon have tried to argue and interpret pretty much everything but Romans 9. Heck, between the two of you you can't even agree on what "election" means, but hey, at least you both agree that the Calvinists can't be right.

Your approach has been something like a cliched Hong Kong action movie. But I have tired of dispatching puny and simplistic henchmen with limited vocabularies. What do you say we fast-forward through the rest of them and get right to the big showdown with the boss man? I am calling him out . . . that is, if he dares show his dishonourable face.

Give us your best argument why Romans 9 doesn't say what Calvinists say it does, and shame us once and for all. Or, concede defeat and keep quiet. Your call.

 

[Yelsew2]

Wow, Ransom, by adding those words to the Ephesians passage, you have certainly strengthened what I said, Thank You. Why did you stop there? Why not continue through verses 13 and 14? Perhaps you did but didn't like the result because it refutes the calvinists use of verses 3-5!

Here it is again 13.14.

Now you too, (who? the Ephesians) in him, have heard the message of the truth and the gospel of your (who? The Ephesians) salvation, and having put your (the Ephesians) trust in it you (the Ephesians) have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit of the Promise, who (the Holy Spirit) is the pledge of our (both Apostles and Ephesians) inheritance, for the freedom of the people (all who believe) whom God has taken for his own, for the praise of his glory.

Amazing!

 

[Yelsew2]

Regarding Roman's 9, we've been there and done that, but you refuse to see the truth. All you want to do is save your false doctrine, your comfort zone if you will. In other words your arguments are not convincing!

 

[Ransom]

That was the "concede defeat and keep quiet" option, right?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Yelsew2 has just argued that the proper antecedent of the pronoun "us" in Ephesians 1:1-14 is not Paul and his readers, but the apostles. Let's apply that reasoning consistently throughout the passage and see if the argument holds water.

While I will acknowledge that Paul is obviously reference two groups of people in this passage, why else would his pronoun change from "us/we" to "you" in verse 13. However, I also admit that Paul could have been considering the two groups Jews and Gentiles or as Yelsew is pointing out he could be refering to apostles and believers. Any way you want to interpret this there is still not support for Calvinistic doctrine. Ransom, notice that you never addressed my point above. You only contrasted my points to Yelsews. Not all Calvinists agree on every interpretation, nor do all Arminians but that doesn't excuse you ignoring the argument and laughing it off as if all you Calvinists have it all together. That was just a stark sign of your immaturity in regard to these matters.

OK . . . I've had enough pussyfooting around with you guys on this passage. Since I joined this thread, I have asked for an exegesis of Romans 9 that would defend the Arminian view.

"Uh . . . erm . . . go read Clarke," you said.

Once again, your immaturity is shining through. Providing you a source of exegesis instead of taking extra time out of my day to meet your every whim is not "hiding behind someone" nor is it us stuttering as you imply here. Why must you resort to childish banter? How old are you? Twelve...Thirteen?

But when I pointed out what I consider to be a fatal weakness to Clarke's exposition . . . silence.

I believe I answered all of your posts to this point. Could you point out the "fatal weakness" that I fail to address? Thanks

Challenged to provide my own interpretation of Romans 9, I did so. Have I received even a word of interaction with my exegesis? Not one.

WHAT?!?!?!?

I copied and pasted your entire summary as an outline for my rebuttal! Your answer was to ignore it because I drew some conclusions from the following chapters. If you knew anything about hermeneutics you would know that context is very important and the surrounding chapters should be used to interpret the text.

Heck, between the two of you you can't even agree on what "election" means, but hey, at least you both agree that the Calvinists can't be right.

And you and Larry can't agree on Limited Atonement, so what? Grow up and deal with arguments that I present instead of diverting attention by trying to pit Yelsew and I against each other. He seems like a nice guy and all but I'm not debating him, I'm debating you. No, let me correct that, I'm trying to debate you on the issues but you refuse to deal with my arguments because you are too busy diverting the attention away from issues you don't know how to handle.

Your approach has been something like a cliched Hong Kong action movie. But I have tired of dispatching puny and simplistic henchmen with limited vocabularies. What do you say we fast-forward through the rest of them and get right to the big showdown with the boss man? I am calling him out . . . that is, if he dares show his dishonourable face. Give us your best argument why Romans 9 doesn't say what Calvinists say it does, and shame us once and for all. Or, concede defeat and keep quiet. Your call.

Good night!!! You've got to be a teenager!

I'll tell you what, deal with the arguements I've already dished out and then I'll consider moving on to your "show down" cowboy.

 

[Yelsew2]

Originally posted by Ransom:
That was the "concede defeat and keep quiet" option, right?

NO! It is a challenge for you to see the truth! If you continue to refuse to do so, though your salvation is secure in you FAITH in God, you still hold to false teachings which inhibit your spiritual growth.

 

[Ransom]

Skandelon said:

Ransom, notice that you never addressed my point above.

"Mr. Kettle . . . paging Mr. Kettle . . . Mr. Pot on line 2."

WHAT?!?!?!?

I copied and pasted your entire summary as an outline for my rebuttal!

You ignored the entirety of my exegesis which led to that summary. But I guess that since you cut and pasted my summary then dashed off to chapter 11, then my exegesis of Rom. 9 must have been dealt with.

Pull the other one.

I'll tell you what, deal with the arguements I've already dished out and then I'll consider moving on to your "show down" cowboy.

Consider them answered, cowgirl:

Romans 9 Verse By Verse (almost)

Care to deal with the upper 95% this time?

 

[Ransom]

Yelsew2 said:

NO! It is a challenge for you to see the truth!

I came to the truth about Romans 9 by actually reading Romans 9. You and Skandelon think that the key to understanding Romans 9 is not reading Romans 9.

You two can rave on about "the truth" or my "immaturity" all you want . . . but I think that what really gets you going is that I insist on sticking to the text.

Care to take a[nother] shot at it?

Romans 9 Verse By Verse (almost)

 

[tnelson]

Ransom, I enjoyed reading "Romans Verse by Verse(Almost)".

by His Grace
mike

 

[Ransom]

Thanks. It's comprehensive, but still a work in progress, so if you see anything in my exegesis that you take issue with, feel free to take it up with me.

For example, I am in the midst of reading John Piper's The Justification of God, which is a very detailed exegesis of this passage. I do recommend this book highly. One thing Piper argues, which I did not see going through the chapter on my own, is that Romans 9 is a theodicy defending God's freedom. He has a point. I'll be making some revisions to reflect that at some time.