Originally posted by 4study:
it's about "the true Israel". Paul says, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel". In other words, being an Israelite by birth does not obligate God to have mercy on that individual. Also, and I think primarily, since the majority of Israelites reject God, does not make the promises of God void. Because who is an Israelite? Not one by birth, but one by faith. And those who are "of faith" are those whom God has mercy upon. Since God chose Israel, does his mercy upon those other than Isreal make Him unjust? No. Because God had revealed through Moses, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy". So it's not of those who are in a particular postion by a will of the flesh (those who are Israelites by birth) but of those whom God will have mercy upon regardless of birthright but rather of faith. Those who are "of faith" are also considered "vessels of honour", not in person, but in office. So this is about "who is Israel" or as the KJV says, "the children of promise". They are whom they are as a result of God's promise to those who are of faith which is a description of the office of "vessels of honour".
Wow, let me say I misjudged you 4study, I really thought for a while there you weren't going to have any substance to your debate. This is good stuff.
I agree with all of this that I have left in the quote, but notice I pulled out a couple of lines with which I disagree.
The thrust of this context is not about why God selects to have mercy on some and not others
Election means "to choose." Paul introduces the term "election" in verse 11. He chooses Jacob over Esau, or if you want, one nation over the other, or even further one office (seed of Abraham) to another office (people of faith). I don't have a problem with this. Its semantics to me, so I'll let your translation stand. But it is about election, either way you interpret it. (Of course I also understand that we see election differently, I'll get to that)
The "children of promise" are not whom they are as a result of personal election. If they were, then Israelites by birth would have a very good argument before God.
I understand your arguement here. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that if God chooses certain individuals for salvation ("personal election") and does not elect the "seed of Abraham" (Jews) they could have an arguement against His Justice because He'd be going back on his first covenant. Right?
You're exactly right, the Jews would have a reason to question God's justice. The line of Abraham (Jews) would be ticked that God would elect people outside of their lineage. It is for this reason that I believe that is exactly what Paul is saying God did. Paul is saying, God's election is based upon his own pleasure, he can have mercy on whomever he wants!
The fact that Paul anticipates the Jews cry, "God this is unjust!" Proves all the more that personal election is Paul's message in this chapter. He even clarifies in verse 16 saying, "It does not, therefore, depend upon man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."
You were right in asserting that it does not depend on their birth right, it doesn't. But it also doesn't depend on their will, which is why he continues to give a defense by appealing to God's dealings with Pharoah and his analogy of the clay in the potters hand.
Now, if your interpretation is accurate. Jews would not be calling God unjust. Afterall, they would only have to choose him by their own free will if they desired mercy--What is "unjust" in their eyes about that?
Even more convincing is Paul's next anticipated arguement: "Then why does God still blame us. For who resists His will?" Your interpretation of personal choice (as opposed to mine of divine election) does not afford this complaint from the Jew. Afterall, your interpretation leaves no one to blame except your own free will.
See, it just doen't make since to anticipate the arguement of human responsiblity if he is in support of it himself. Does that make since? If Paul believed as you do he would have said, "One of you might say to me: "They why does God still blame us? For who resist's His will? Don't blame God! You are the only one to blame because God gives you the freedom to resist His will. You can choose whether or not to have faith in Christ and be saved. There is no one to blame but yourselves for rejecting His offer of grace."
Of course, that's not what he says. Not even close! He doesn't try to remove the responsiblity of God's election by explaining it away (as Choice theologians do). He accepts it as being God's responsibility and gives us reasons why it is like that.
One other point. You speak of the "Children of the promise" as being in the office of faith. We obviously disagree with how one obtains faith. I believe it is a fruit of God's grace in his election. Faith is from God (Eph.2:8; Rom. 12:3; Jn 6:29; John 10:25-26; Acts 13:48--just to name a few) Which is why I don't disagree with much of you interpretation. The issue all goes back to my original question, "Why do you beleive?" at the start of this posted topic.
