Frustration over debate about Calvinism

[canadyjd]

So true. Scripture states that:

John 4::3, 4
3. He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
4. And he must needs go through Samaria.

Why did Jesus Christ need to go to Samaria when Jews avoided it like the plague. He needed to see the woman. Just as God sought out Adam and Eve He always takes the initiative in Salvation.

All Praise to Him for it is certain that unregenerate man will not seek Him.

Amen and Amen!!!:thumbs:

I even saw one person claim that nearly all the people that Jesus healed sought Him out instead of Him seeking them out.

How short sighted not to recognize that Jesus initiated all "seeking" when He took on flesh and came from heaven to "seek and to save that which was lost".

peace to youraying:

 

[BaptistBob]

There is absolutely no evidence in that passage that God looked into the future, saw that Esau would forsake his birthright and Jacob would believe, and make an election based on that knowledge. It just isn't there.[/COLOR]

In fact, the point of the passage is exactly the opposite of what you are attempting to make it say. God chose according to His purpose, not according to anything Jacob or Esau did or would do. It was His purpose alone that governed His choice.

Can't you see that you are attempting to make the passage say the exact opposite of Paul's point? You are saying that Jacob warranted being chosen (elected) by God, because saw that He would believe.

Again, that is the opposite of what Paul is teaching in the passage.
"him that calleth" is referring to God calling to His people, not people calling out to God.

Read a few verses further and you'll find, in v. 16 "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Clearly, the will of man is not the deciding factor in salvation. The will of God in electing some by showing mercy (v.15 "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." is the thing that determines salvation. My sentiments exactly. It's really not that difficult to understand if you will just believe what scripture says about election and salvation.

v. 16 "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

peace to youraying:

Actually, that portion of the passage has nothing to do with salvation, per se. Paul had just said that the birthright of Israel had many benefits but did not save. Then Paul talks about how Israel came about (i.e., the fulfillment of a promise) to demonstrate the validity of God's word being fulfilled by a promise, of which the Gentiles take part through faith.

Jacob received the birthright that Paul had just mentioned does not save. Jacob did not first believe on that day, nor was he baptized or circumcised on that day. Salvation is not gained by strapping an animal skin on one's arm and tricking a old, blind man. If salvation came about that way, then it "depends upon the man who wills or runs."

Paul's opposition claims that if the promise is received through faith (not that faith is received though the promise), then God's word to Israel has failed. Paul's point is that the promise made to Israel/Jacob was not the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, but instead a temporary way to deal with sin until the arrival of Messiah.

Furthermore, the Jewish opposition argues that their cultic practices were prescribed by God and marked them out as God's people, thereby guaranteeing them the inheritance. Paul argues that since God's word was fulfilled in a promise, it is not by bloodline, so the Jewish cultic practices were not the means of fulfillment. When God told Abraham "Sarah will have a son" he did so before either son had participated in "works of the law" that marked them as Jews, so how could it be that the bloodline was the means of fulfilling God's word, as opposed to that particular "promise"? Indeed, the Jews had "willed" and "run" according to "works of the law," but since God's word is fulfilled through a "promise," Jewish cultic practice does not legitimize the claim according to the bloodline .

God's word is fulfilled through a "promise." It's not a secret promise, but a promise already recorded in Scripture. Those who believe partake of the promise through faith, and are included in God's people.

Romans 4:13
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Romans 4:14
For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless,

As Zeisler puts it, “If historical Israel was the recipient of God’ promises to Abraham (vv. 4-5), and if God has now rejected her in favor of a new and multi-racial people, does that not impugn the faithfulness and reliability of God” (Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 234)? Or as Hays comments, “If there is no such congruity [between God’s word of Scripture and God’s word according to Paul], then the word of God has ‘fallen’ (Rom. 9:6), and the God with whom we have to do is either untrustworthy or impotent” (Echoes, 64). It’s important, then, to understand that God’s covenant faithfulness in Scripture, to Abraham and the patriarchs, was not to be fulfilled in Israel “according to the flesh,” but in Christ and his people.

 

[canadyjd]

Actually, that portion of the passage has nothing to do with salvation, per se.....

The underlining theme is that salvation comes to those God has chosen/elect (the children of promise) and not according to works.

v.22-24 "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for desctruction? (23) And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (24) even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

So, again you see the will of God in the salvation of men. God "prepared beforehand" that some would be vessels of mercy (vessels recieving mercy). God prepared them beforehand and God called them.

v. 16 "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

To God be the glory forever and forever. Amen.

peace to youraying:

 

[Me4Him]

How can people who have never heard of Christ (and we know from history that billions lived and died without ever hearing the Gospel) have an "equal opportunity" to be saved? God doesn't have to answer to your idea of fairness. That is one of the points of Romans 9.

Is what you call "Fairness" regulated by a set of laws/principles in scripture????

"Fairness/Sovereign will" doesn't have to abide by any set laws/principles,

However to "JUDGE" a "Standard" must be established by law/principles, a standard which even the Judge can't deviate from, else he himself violates the law/principles,

And this is especially true when the Judge is the one who established the laws/principles.

Man is "born" with the law/principes (knowledge) of "Good/Evil" in his heart, and it's the "Heart" that God Judges.

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Mt 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

"Totally depravity" denies there is any "Good" left in this "image of God", called mankind.

Jesus preached to the deceased of the OT who. "in their heart", attempted to obey the law, but had never heard the gospel before they died, why wouldn't that same principle apply to other people in the same category???

I'll leave that Judgment to God. :thumbs:

The "no excuse" for mankind comes from general revelation found in creation (Rom. 1:18+). The fact that every single person rejected general revelation leaves the entire world "without excuse" and makes God's judgment/condemnation upon them righteous.

Certainly, God reveals himself through the law and principles of good/evil written on our hearts and seen in the world.

The best preacher in the world is "OUR CONSCIENCE".

That God sent Jesus Christ as a "special revelation" that brings salvation to those He has chosen, calling them by the power of Holy Spirit, regenerating them so that are able to repent and believe, speaks of God's mercy and love. Really, looks to me like Jesus sought the woman out and she responded to His revelation of Himself to her.

peace to youraying:

Why would God say he didn't send Jesus to condemn the world, and died for the sins of the whole world, the "free gift" to "all men" that the whole might be saved, not willing "any" perish,

"If he didn't mean it"???

"Election", by "Sovereign will", as interpreted by Calvins doctrine, contradicts "God's will" as stated in scripture.

And that leads to all the other "out of context" interpretations.

Calvin's doctrine is like a three legged stool, remove any leg, the whole thing collapses.

 

[OldRegular]

"Totally depravity" denies there is any "Good" left in this "image of God", called mankind.

I see that you still have no idea what total depravity means!

 

[Me4Him]

Really, looks to me like Jesus sought the woman out and she responded to His revelation of Himself to her.

peace to youraying:

The "woman" prefigures/foreshadows the "bride of Christ", the Gentile church.

Samaria was the land given to "Ephriam", prophesied to be the father of a "multitude of nations", (gentiles), but the "Woman" claimed Jacob as her ancestor.

When the "Southern tribes" (Judah/Benjamin= Jews) rejected Jesus, he took the gospel to the "northen tribes" ("Israelites"=Samaritans/Gentiles).

Joh 11:53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

The Jews are blinded until the "fulness of the Gentiles", and Jesus spent 'TWO DAYS" with the "Samaritans/Gentiles" before returning to "Galilee", or the "Jews".

Ho 6:2 After two days will he revive us: (Jews) in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

It's no "coincides" Jews had been blinded two thousand years (two days) or that the one world Government of the trib period is being sit up as we speak,

The "fulness of the Gentiles" (Rapture) is about to take place and Jesus is going back to "Galilee" to finish with the Jews. (trib period).

I'm telling you this to show there's an understanding of scripture that goes beyond the words printed on the paper.

I'd even go so far as to say there is more information "between the lines" than "on the lines".

Yes Jesus sought out the "woman", "as many as ye find, invite to the wedding".

Mt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3 And sent forth his servants to call them (Jews) that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

Mt 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, (Gentiles) and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Bob,

Paul had just said that the birthright of Israel had many benefits but did not save. Then Paul talks about how Israel came about (i.e., the fulfillment of a promise) to demonstrate the validity of God's word being fulfilled by a promise, of which the Gentiles take part through faith.

I agree with you that the verses 4-5 describe the "benefits" that belong to Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh." Paul has great sorrow and unceasing grief over this group of people that he has in mind (verse 2). In fact, his grief is so strong that he says, "I could wish that I were accursed, seperated from Christ for the sake of my bretheren (verse 3)." You mention that this section has to do with salvation ("...but did not save"). I agree. You then go onto to say, "Then Paul talks about how Israel came about...to demonstrate the validity of God's word being fulfilled by a promise..." Here is what I take you to mean by this...

(1) Paul's main concern here is to show that "God's word being fulfilled by a promise" is valid.
(2) The demonstration of (1) is the origin of Israel, i.e., "...how Israel came about...".

I am not sure what (1) means. Are you saying that when God's word says, "You will be my people" that this statement is fulfilled by another promise? If so, then in what sense is it fulfilled? It seems intuitive to think of fulfillment as the actualization of that which was promised. Lastly, I am not sure what group of people you are talking about in (2) when you say "origin of Israel", or how this "demonstrates" (1). Can you make this explicit? Thanks in the advance for the clarifications.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. This may be off-topic. I certainly do not want to derail this thread. So, if it is, then please ignore my post.

 

[BaptistBob]

P.S. This may be off-topic. I certainly do not want to derail this thread. So, if it is, then please ignore my post.

Not at all. In fact, I'll reply to your post first, since I'm really busy this weekend helping with and attending a wedding and helping with a painting project at chuch.

Iagree with you that the verses 4-5 describe the "benefits" that belong to Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh." Paul has great sorrow and unceasing grief over this group of people that he has in mind (verse 2). In fact, his grief is so strong that he says, "I could wish that I were accursed, seperated from Christ for the sake of my bretheren (verse 3)." You mention that this section has to do with salvation ("...but did not save"). I agree. You then go onto to say, "Then Paul talks about how Israel came about...to demonstrate the validity of God's word being fulfilled by a promise..." Here is what I take you to mean by this...

(1) Paul's main concern here is to show that "God's word being fulfilled by a promise" is valid.
(2) The demonstration of (1) is the origin of Israel, i.e., "...how Israel came about...".

Very good. I'm not going to nitpick about how you worded it, since I think we are saying the same thing.

I am not sure what (1) means. Are you saying that when God's word says, "You will be my people" that this statement is fulfilled by another promise? If so, then in what sense is it fulfilled? It seems intuitive to think of fulfillment as the actualization of that which was promised. Lastly, I am not sure what group of people you are talking about in (2) when you say "origin of Israel", or how this "demonstrates" (1). Can you make this explicit? Thanks in the advance for the clarifications.

My point is that Paul's opposition's argument is based upon their claim of a bloodline from Abraham. Paul derails the argument by focusing on the fact that God's means of fulfilling his word was through a promise, not a bloodline. Paul's "promise" argument is the pivotal point in his theology.

Galatians 3 also demonstrates Paul's approach:

5Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Paul will go on to explain (3:23-25) that the Jews who trusted God lived under the law until the promise mentioned above to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. In the verses above his "promise" theology refutes the Jewish claim of corporate solidarity "in Abraham" as a means of receiving Abraham's inheritance. Those who trust in Christ become "seeds" in the Seed to whom the promise was made.

To Paul, the promise spoken to Abraham is fulfilled in Christ. And because it was a promise to Abraham (even when he was still a Gentile, according to Romans 4), it is not based upon bloodline or "natural descent."

Anyhow, I rushed through this. I want to post some more sometime in the next 8 hours.

Thanks for asking.

P.S. My explanation here is for those who are not dispensationalists. I am not a dispensationalist, but I can adapt my explainations to fit the paradigm. I hate the bashing that goes on when that topic comes up, so my comments are not intended as a "dig" at that perspective. My assumption is that a lot of the readers here are not dispensationalists, so that I how I am approaching the topic.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Bob,

Thank you for your helpful reply. Allow me to check my understanding again.

My point is that Paul's opposition's argument is based upon their claim of a bloodline from Abraham. Paul derails the argument by focusing on the fact that God's means of fulfilling his word was through a promise, not a bloodline. Paul's "promise" argument is the pivotal point in his theology...To Paul, the promise spoken to Abraham is fulfilled in Christ. And because it was a promise to Abraham (even when he was still a Gentile, according to Romans 4), it is not based upon bloodline or "natural descent."

Please bear with me as I put what I think you to be saying into different words once again. Essentially, you understand the objection that Paul begins dealing with in verse six to be...

Objection: How can we trust that "nothing will seperate us from the love of God" if God's own chosen Israel is largely rejecting the Messiah? (The idea here is that God seemingly has failed concerning his promise of an inheritance regarding His "chosen people".)

Paul's answer (derailment) to this objection is...

Answer: The fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance (Gal. 5:18) is not based on being an ethnic Jew (bloodline). Rather, the fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance is based on being in Christ.

Is this what you are saying?

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[psalms109:31]

Seed of Abraham

Abraham is known as the one who believed God and is credited to him as righteousness, so we who believe God are the seed of Abraham. God choose us believers not to believe but He has chosen believers from the beginning. Paul letters is written to believers and yes God has chosen them from the beginning.

It isn't so complicated. We who believe know that it is Jesus who saved as and preach Him and whosoever believes shall be saved.

Do not trust me and what I believe, but trust God.

Psalm 22:5
They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

Romans 10:11
As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

We will fail, but God's love will never fail, trust in Him through Jesus, His only begotten Son.

1 Corinthians 13
Love
1If I speak in the tongues[Or languages] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[Some early manuscripts body that I may boast] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Don't let what men can never comprehend in their life time corrupt how you feel about God and what His word say's about you.

Romans 4
Abraham Justified by Faith
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[Gen. 15:6; also in verse 22] 4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

 

[OldRegular]

The "woman" prefigures/foreshadows the "bride of Christ", the Gentile church.

You got that from reading the white between the print I assume!

Didn't you argue me earlier that the woman was not a gentile?

Samaria was the land given to "Ephriam", prophesied to be the father of a "multitude of nations", (gentiles), but the "Woman" claimed Jacob as her ancestor.

So there were no gentiles before Ephriam, the son of Joseph? Interesting!

When the "Southern tribes" (Judah/Benjamin= Jews) rejected Jesus, he took the gospel to the "northen tribes" ("Israelites"=Samaritans/Gentiles).

You got that from reading the white between the print I assume!

I'm telling you this to show there's an understanding of scripture that goes beyond the words printed on the paper.

I'd even go so far as to say there is more information "between the lines" than "on the lines".

Where me4Him gets his Biblical knowledge!

 

[BaptistBob]

Hello Bob,

Thank you for your helpful reply. Allow me to check my understanding again.



Please bear with me as I put what I think you to be saying into different words once again. Essentially, you understand the objection that Paul begins dealing with in verse six to be...

Objection: How can we trust that "nothing will seperate us from the love of God" if God's own chosen Israel is largely rejecting the Messiah? (The idea here is that God seemingly has failed concerning his promise of an inheritance regarding His "chosen people".)

Not quite, since I take "us" in your comment above to be a reference to an objection a Christian would make. Rather, I see it as the objection that the ever-present Jewish interlocutor is making, with some of the things Paul has already said in mind. See below.

(Furthermore, as an aside at this point, I see Paul as redefining "Israel" in such a way that it is a reference to the church/body of Christ. This is a whole other "bucket of worms," however. My view does not depend upon it, but it does include it.)

Paul's answer (derailment) to this objection is...

Answer: The fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance (Gal. 5:18) is not based on being an ethnic Jew (bloodline). Rather, the fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance is based on being in Christ.

Is this what you are saying?

Correct. Galatians 3:15-18 says that the promise could not be set aside by the law, so it was not dependent upon it in any way. Then he says that the Jews lived under to law, but it could not impart life. The Jews lived under it until the arrival of Christ.

But as I'm sure you're aware, exegesis of each book is best done on its own, before looking at other books. I just mentioned Galatians 3 because it was pretty concise.

So back to Romans....

In a previous post you commented:

Paul has great sorrow and unceasing grief over this group of people that he has in mind (verse 2). In fact, his grief is so strong that he says, "I could wish that I were accursed, seperated from Christ for the sake of my bretheren (verse 3)."

Although it doesn't need to be said that Paul is grieved by Israel’s unbelief (Such as in Romans 10), the issue he’s actually addressing in the opening of Romans is God’s rejection of Israel, rather than their rejection of Christ. The issue for Paul is their exclusion from salvation (e.g., Romans 9:3, 8, 22ff., 30-33). Neither is Israel’s unbelief posed as a problem for God’s faithfulness.

The word "unbelief" doesn’t occur anywhere in the passage. It’s obvious that Israel doesn’t believe, but Israel is that people which identifies with the Sinaitic covenant. It claims as its identity all the things mentioned in Romans 9:4-5. Those things define “Israel.”

I would argue that Paul seeks to correct the idea that this “Israel” is the one to whom the promises were made in the first place, so their lack of faith is assumed by definition of who they are (i.e., Sinaitic Israel). This “Israel” was given promises (Roman 9:4-5) that, if believed (prior to Christ), would result in salvation at one time, but those promises were not themselves the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. Hence, that “Israel” is rejected and a new covenant Israel (Jew and Gentile) is formed. Part of the argument, then, is God’s response to their unbelief, but that should not be confused with an argument as to why they aren’t believing.

Paul believes that God's OT covering of sin is now done away with upon the arrival of Christ, and he explains this in chapters 3 and 9. The Jews did not fulfill their call to be obedient to God and to be a light into the world. Their sins were overlooked until the arrival of Christ (Romans 3:25-26), but now that Christ has come and done what they could not do, Israel stands condemned. No one denies that this is the message of Romans 3,but it's also the message of Romans 9. Here is the line of thinking:

Romans 3:1-2("What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way...")
Corresponds to:
Romans 9:1-5(The advantages of being "the people of Israel" are listed, but not salvation.)

Romans 3:3("Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?")
Corresponds to:
Romans 9:6("It is not as though God's word had failed.")

Romans 3:5("That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?")
Corresponds to:
Romans 9:14("What then shall we say? Is God unjust?")

Romans 3:7(" ...why am I still condemned as a sinner?")
Corresponds to:
Romans 9:19("Then why does God still find fault?")

Romans 3:9,25("What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.")
Corresponds to:
Romans 9:30-11:32 (The disobedience Israel leads to an opportunity for the disobedient Gentiles, which in turn opens yet another opportunity for hardened Israel.)

Israel is an object of wrath, as are all who identify with it's covenant identity. It has not submited to God righteousness (Romans 10:1-5). Physical descent from Abraham counts for nothing as far as right-standing with God is concerned. It is only in Christ, the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, that they will receive mercy. Through Christ a new people will come.

With the arrival of Christ, Paul argues, the situation for the Jews has changed. Now, they find that they are sinners, and God's covenant faithfulness was fulfilled through Christ, not Israel. Therefore, God's true covenant righteousness is even more glorious set against the backdrop of Israel's covenant failure. This is why, after all, the Jews are expected to turn to God, in Christ, for salvation.

 

[BaptistBob]

Continued.......

God, overlooked Israel’s sin in the past. With the arrival of Christ this has changed, for he is the only one that was able to defeat sin and death, and he was the one to whom all good things looked to in anticipation. At one point (11:30-31) Paul puts it this way: Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.

With the arrival of Christ, Israel is shown to be disobedient. This is because (1) their sin was not dealt with under the Sinaitic covenant as they awaited Christ, and (2) being outside Christ means they must put their faith in him to receive mercy once again. The result is that although they once received mercy, God handed them over to their existing disobedience (sin) so that their deliverance would be by Christ, and not according to to the Sinaitic Covenant, and certainly not according to physical descent.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Bob,

You sure did write a lot. You will have to be patient with me in that I try to just take one bite at a time. This is not to say that I do not appreciate all that you wrote. It is simply to say that I will not deal with all of it in this response. I hope that works for you.

Not quite, since I take "us" in your comment above to be a reference to an objection a Christian would make. Rather, I see it as the objection that the ever-present Jewish interlocutor is making, with some of the things Paul has already said in mind.

From this quote I take you to mean that the objector is some ethnic Jew.

Although it doesn't need to be said that Paul is grieved by Israel’s unbelief (Such as in Romans 10), the issue he’s actually addressing in the opening of Romans is God’s rejection of Israel, rather than their rejection of Christ. The issue for Paul is their exclusion from salvation (e.g., Romans 9:3, 8, 22ff., 30-33).

What I understand you to be saying here is that the issue Paul is trying to address with his ethnic Jew objector is why God has rejected Israel – not why Israel is rejecting the Messiah. If this is accurate, then given that the objector is not a Christian, but rather this “ever-present Jewish interlocutor” would the following be one way to frame the objection?

Objection: God is unfaithful to His chosen people because He has rejected us.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[BaptistBob]

Hello Bob,

You sure did write a lot. You will have to be patient with me in that I try to just take one bite at a time. This is not to say that I do not appreciate all that you wrote. It is simply to say that I will not deal with all of it in this response. I hope that works for you.


From this quote I take you to mean that the objector is some ethnic Jew.

What I understand you to be saying here is that the issue Paul is trying to address with his ethnic Jew objector is why God has rejected Israel – not why Israel is rejecting the Messiah. If this is accurate, then given that the objector is not a Christian, but rather this “ever-present Jewish interlocutor” would the following be one way to frame the objection?

Objection: God is unfaithful to His chosen people because He has rejected us.

Sincerely,

Brian

Bingo! (I would write more, but I'm using someone's smart phone.)

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Bob,

Bingo!

OK. In Romans 9 we have an objection being made by an ethnic Jew, and Paul is answering the objector.

Objection: God is unfaithful to His chosen people because He has rejected us.

Answer: The fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance (Gal. 5:18) is not based on being an ethnic Jew (bloodline). Rather, the fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance is based on being in Christ.

Now that we somewhat clarified your thinking regarding the objection and the answer, I want to try to understand a little better how this answer deals with the objection. You say...

I would argue that Paul seeks to correct the idea that this “Israel” is the one to whom the promises were made in the first place...

Here is the situation as I understand it...

(1) We have an ethnic Jew arguing that God is unfaithful for rejecting natural Israel.
(2) Paul says that God is faithful even though He rejected natural Israel.
(3) The reason God is still faithful even though He rejected natural Israel is because the promises that were made by God were not made to natural Israel; therefore, God's rejection of natural Israel is independent of the promise made.

Is this your position?

Brian

 

[BaptistBob]

Hello Bob,



OK. In Romans 9 we have an objection being made by an ethnic Jew, and Paul is answering the objector.

Objection: God is unfaithful to His chosen people because He has rejected us.

Answer: The fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance (Gal. 5:18) is not based on being an ethnic Jew (bloodline). Rather, the fulfillment of God's promise of an inheritance is based on being in Christ.

Now that we somewhat clarified your thinking regarding the objection and the answer, I want to try to understand a little better how this answer deals with the objection. You say...



Here is the situation as I understand it...

(1) We have an ethnic Jew arguing that God is unfaithful for rejecting natural Israel.
(2) Paul says that God is faithful even though He rejected natural Israel.
(3) The reason God is still faithful even though He rejected natural Israel is because the promises that were made by God were not made to natural Israel; therefore, God's rejection of natural Israel is independent of the promise made.

Is this your position?

Brian

I'm not sure what you mean by this:

God's rejection of natural Israel is independent of the promise made.

If by that you mean that they were under the law until the promise was fulfilled in Christ, then I agree. Also, you keep referring to Gal. 5:18, but I think you mean 3:18.

Look at the issue that Paul had in mind when he wrote his book:

Here's how be begins his book:

1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an
apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
2the gospel he promised beforehand through
his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.

Whatever Paul's "gospel" is, it is the fulfillment of a "promise" made to someone. It is also explicit, in that it was spoken by prophets and recorded in Holy Scriptures. Again, Paul's gospel = the promise.

Let's look at how Paul ends his book:

25Now to him who is able to establish you by
my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus
Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery
hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed
and made known through the prophetic writings
by the command of the eternal God, so that
all nations might believe and obey him--
27to the only wise God be glory forever through
Jesus Christ!

Paul's "gospel" is the "proclamation of Jesus" which is delivered to the nations and that = the promise. Paul's opposition objects that they are the heirs to the promises delivered to Abraham and the prophets, so it appears God's word has failed. They did not inherit what was promised.

But God's word being fulfilled via a promise makes the idea that it is fulfilled in the natural descents a false understanding.

 

[Lux et veritas]

Free will has sent millions to hell. Only Free Grace can take a sinner to heaven. It is always amazing to me that Christians want a 'Sovereign God' in every area of the universe and their lives, EXCEPT when it comes to the most important thing of all ... salvation. There, the sinner's will must over-rule that will of the Sovereign Lord. Isn't that sad?

 

[Me4Him]

Free will has sent millions to hell. Only Free Grace can take a sinner to heaven. It is always amazing to me that Christians want a 'Sovereign God' in every area of the universe and their lives, EXCEPT when it comes to the most important thing of all ... salvation. There, the sinner's will must over-rule that will of the Sovereign Lord. Isn't that sad?

Bob/Brian discussion present a good opportunity to ask a couple of questions.

"Assuming" everything is "predestine/decreed" by God and nothing occurs except it's been predestine/decreed,

1. Why would Jesus make an offer and tell Israel, "I would, "IF" you would, (but you wouldn't) when God had "predestine/decreed" them to reject Jesus??

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

If what occurred was "predestine", Jesus was making an offer against the "predestine will of God".

2. Not only that, By telling Israel, I would if you would, knowing God was not going to "GIVE THEM FAITH" to believe and be saved, was actually a "LIE",

because it wasn't possible, and why would Jesus place the failure of faith on Israel having it rather than God supplying it???



Ro 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

Ro 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.

Ro 11:23 And they also, "IF" they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

What occurred between Jesus/Israel contradict the doctrine of "predestination/Effectual calling/regeneration before faith".

 

[Me4Him]

You got that from reading the white between the print I assume!

Didn't you argue me earlier that the woman was not a gentile?

So there were no gentiles before Ephriam, the son of Joseph? Interesting!

You got that from reading the white between the print I assume!

Is your diagreement based on "research/knowledge" or "Speculation"???

Where me4Him gets his Biblical knowledge!

Certainly not out of a bookstore or the opinion of "other men".