Justification and Law in Paul

[Dr. Walter]

This is the post (#125) that you assert PROVES your position! I shedded your arguments below in posts #126, 131 and 136. However, I will gladly shred them again:

Agree. But again, providing examples of God hardening Pharoah can be used by Paul as an example of the fact that God can harden people for his purposes, supporting his conclusion that God has hardened "a lot of Jews"

It is one thing to say the hardening of Pharoah illustration is an "example of the fact that God can harden people for his purpose, SUPPORTING his conclusion that God has hardened 'a lot of Jews" but quite another thing to say that the hardening of Pharoah is an example of the fact that God can harden ONLY JEWS and is RESTRICTED to Jews only.

Your own actual words above are in complete agreement with my position but not your position. My position is that the example of Pharoah is in illustration how God can harden "PEOPLE" (Jews and gentiles) and in specific gentiles such as Pharoah and Jews such as Ishmael and Esau all named in the context that are examples of children born after the flesh rather than the children of promise.

Your position STRAYS from the initial Pauline point in verses 6-8 and line of argument. He is distinguishing the children of promise from those born after the flesh in verses 6-8 to prove that simply election to national privileges (vv. 3-5) do not equate to PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL SALVATION. Romans 9:9-13 further demonstrates this same point by giving examples among JEWS of this very distinction (after the flesh children - Ishmael, Esau; children of promise - Isaac, Jacob). Romans 9:15-18 further demonstrates this point by giving an example among GENTILES of this very distinction. Romans 9:19-23 further demonstrates this same point by giving a UNIVERSAL example of this same distinction including both Jews and Gentiles (v. 24). Your exposition departes from the primary and initial point Paul states in verses 6-8 and continues to illustrate and establish in verses 9-24.

The fact that the "us" who are vessels of mercy is a group constituted by Jew and Gentiles does not logicallly require us to see the "vessels of destruction" as likewise constituted by Jews and Gentiles.

If you cannot understand this, we are at an impasse.

The previous immediate developmental context totally repudiates your departure at this point from the contextual development of Pauls' argument. Verses 6-8 provide the primary distinction of this context. In verses 9-13 the same distinction is illustrated among Jews. In verses 15-18 the same distinction is made among Gentiles and defended. In verses 19-24 the same distinction is made by the combining of both Jews and Gentiles. If you cannot understand this, we are at an impasse, as it is you, not I, that depart from the contextual developmental point established in verses 6-8 and illustrated by Jews (9-13) by gentiles (15-18) and finally by both Jews and Gentiles (vv. 19-24) and if you cannot see that, then you simply are choosing what you want to see rather than the facts of the context.

But it is simply incorrect reasoning to argue thus:

1. The vessels of mercy contain Jews and Gentiles;
2. Therefore the vessels of destruction contain both Jews and Gentiles.

Point 1 is obviously true - no one is denying that the vessels of mercy contain both Jews and Gentile. But point 2 simply does not follow logically.

It is not incorrect reasoning if the immediate preceding context and primary argument of Paul is the basis for exegesis. It does follow logically if you pay attention to the immediate context preceding verses 19-23. It is a GENTILE not a Jew that Paul sets forth as the example of HARDENING. Your position would have required Paul to use either Ishmael or Esau as the examples of hardening if Paul's point is to restrict hardening to Jews only in either Romans 9:15-18 or Romans 9:19-23. He clearly does not but uses a gentile in the very illustration of hardening and clearly includes gentiles in his final illustration that you want to restrict to Jews only (v. 24).

Furthermore, the entire context is talking about INDIVIDUALISM rather than NATIONALISM. He is explicitly repudiating individual salvation based upon NATIONAL ELECTION. It is the Phariseeical position that because I am born into the ELECT NATION with its NATIONAL privileges given to Abraham then I am a child of God. That is the very issue he is repudiating in Romans 9:3-8. The elect national priviledges are stated in verses 3-5 and his repudiation that natural born Jews are the children of God in verses 6-8.

For him to revert to NATIONALISM in verses 9-13 would be to repudiate what he said in verses 6-8. For him to revert to NATIONALISM in verses 9-13 would demand he makes a distinction WITHIN national Israel between the children of Promise and those born after the flesh but then provide absolutely no grounds for distinguishing between the two in verses 9-23.

Romans 9:15-18 again is making INDIVDUAL distinctions between vessels of "mercy" versus vessels of wrath "hardeneth" and it is a GENTILE that is provided as an illustration of a vessel of wrath and hardening. According to your rationale, this should exclude all Jews as objects (vessels) of mercy in Romans 9:15-18 since the illustration is restriced to a gentile as that is exactly the insane rationale you use in verses 19-23.

To argue that the chosen INDIVIDUAL Pharoah is the example of hardening, thus a vessel of wrath in verses 15-18 but excluded as a "vessel of wrath" in verses 19-23 should equally exclude any gentile as a "vessel of mercy" as it is irrational to argue that there are INDIVIDUAL gentiles "vessles of mercy" but no INDIVIDUAL gentiles "vessels of wrath" who have been hardened when the very preceding context explicitly identifies an INDIVIDUAL gentile that was hardened and thus a vessle of wrath.

Suppose that there was a scientist who discoverd how to make a medecine out of the dead bodies of a certain sub-class of male flies in order to give that medecine to all female flies and the rest of the male flies (the ones not in that first sub-class) to save that second set of flies (female and male) from extinction. This is a possible scenario.

And it could be said that that the first subset of male flies are "vessels of destruction" and that all females and the rest of the male flies are "vessels of mercy".

This proves, yes proves, that the fact that one group - the vessels of mercy - contain both Jews and Gentiles does not logically require that the vessels of destruction contain both Jew and Gentile.

Now you have a right to choose to believe otherwise, but that would not be a defensible position to take.


I have just proven this reasoning to be incorrect.

You are driven from the immediate context and the developmental logic of Paul to take refuge in a imaginary philosophical illustration. Why? Because you cannot prove your position from the context. Why? Because I have shredded every argument you have attempted to read into the context.

However, I also demonstrated the complete irrational basis of this inept illustration. The source of both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy is THE SAME source - GENERIC HUMANITY.

You responded it is "ALL ISRAEL." However, Paul says that "ALL ISREAL" shall be saved and if this "lump" is "ALL ISRAEL" than obviously "ALL ISRAEL" shall not be saved as there are "vessels of wrath FITTED TO DESTRUCTION out of this lump.

It does not matter how you define "all Israel" whether national ethnic Israel or All the elect because if you define this single source of the both those fitted to destruction and those prepared afore to glory it is evident that NOT ALL ARE SAVED and yet Paul demands that "ALL ISREAL" shall be saved (Rom. 11:26). Thus defined "all Israel" any way you like and it still destroys your philosophical inept irrational analogy.

However, I provided solid contextual evidences from Romans 11:25-28 that "All Israel" is the same "Israel" in verse 25 that is in verse 26 - ethnic Israel. That "all Israel" in verse 26 is the same pronoun "their" and "they" in verses 27-28 who are presently "ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL" for the sake of GENTILES thus ethnic Israel. Who are also beloved of the Father right now, even as "ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL" because of election as "all Israel" shall be saved at the second advent of Christ after the fullness of the Gentile elect come in, which again distinguishes them from GENTILES as ethnic Israel living at the second advent who are not yet saved, who are still ENEMIES of the gospel.

I have shredded your irrational unbiblical position into a million shattered pieces of eisgetical and philosophical garbage.

Finally, you claimed that the illustration of the Potter must be restricted to Israel as the Old Testament uses it in regard to Israel! However, Paul's inclusion of Gentiles in verse 24 shreds that argument. The fact that Paul uses a Gentile for illustration of hardening in verses 15-18 would require your kind of logic to deny that hardening applies to Jews since Paul only uses a Gentile to illustrate it! Your arguments are illogical, irrational and motivated not by exegesis but by eisgetical nonsense.

The truth is that the GENTILE illustration of hardening provides a GENERAL truth applicable to both Jews and Gentiles just as the Potter illustration provides a GENERAL truth applicable to both Jews and Gentiles. Why? Because even though Paul is specifically applying it to ethnic Israel, the children of promise and those born after the flesh go far beyond the borders of Judaism (Gal. 4:26-29).

 

[Andre]

It is one thing to say the hardening of Pharoah illustration is an "example of the fact that God can harden people for his purpose, SUPPORTING his conclusion that God has hardened 'a lot of Jews" but quite another thing to say that the hardening of Pharoah is an example of the fact that God can harden ONLY JEWS and is RESTRICTED to Jews only.

I have never stated that God can only harden Jews.

What I have stated is that, in Romans 9 to 11, Paul is describing a specific hardening of the nation of Israel.

Your actual words above are in complete agreement with my position not your position. My position is that the example of Pharoah is in illustration how God can harden "PEOPLE" (Jews and gentiles) and in specifically gentiles such as Pharoah and Jew such as Ishmael and Esau all named in the context that are examples of children born after the flesh rather than the children of promise.

I am not sure what your critique of my position is here. I obviously agree that God can harden Gentiles and did harden Gentiles.

But you have not engaged my argument that we need understand the "vessels of destruction" need not include Gentiles.

Nowhere in Romans 9 does Paul talk about Gentiles using the language "children of the flesh" - he uses the term "children of the flesh here to denote ethnic Jews.

I suspect that you will invoke other texts from elsewhere in the letter or other letters to make the case that "children of the flesh" must include Gentiles. The problem with that is it is clear that Paul uses the term "flesh" in a variety of ways - sometimes to refer to the state of fallen man, sometimes to refer to ethnic Jews. Here, in chapter 9, he is clearly using it to refer to ethnic Jews.

It seems to me that you are making two unjustified moves:

1. Assuming that Paul includes Gentiles as "children of the flesh" here.
2. Assuming that the "vessels of destruction" category maps to the "children of flesh" category.

I have shredded your irrational unbiblical position into a million shattered pieces of eisgetical and philosophical garbage.

Why do you do this?

What psychological need is fulfilled when you insult other people?

Besides, you have demonstrably not undermined my argument in any sense.

 

[Andre]

Your position STRAYS from the initial Pauline point in verses 6-8 and line of argument. He is distinguishing the children of promise from those born after the flesh in verses 6-8 to prove that simply election to national privileges (vv. 3-5) do not equate to PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL SALVATION.

You keep making this statement as if you think I am disagreeing with you.

In 6-8, Paul is saying that being of Jewish ethnicity does not suffice to make you a child of God, it is rather the children of promise - which includes both some Jews and some Gentiles -that are the children of God.

Here is verse 3:

For I could wish 4 that I myself were accursed – cut off from Christ – for the sake of my people, 5 my fellow countrymen

In the greek, the last bit is "my kinsmen according to the flesh".

Paul is clearly using the term "flesh" to denote Jewishness - it is not being used to denote fallen humanity, Jew and Gentile alike.

Romans 9:9-13 further demonstrates this same point by giving examples among JEWS of this very distinction (after the flesh children - Ishmael, Esau; children of promise - Isaac, Jacob). Romans 9:15-18 further demonstrates this point by giving an example among GENTILES of this very distinction.

In verses 15-18 you are out of line with what Paul has written - as I have shown above, Paul's "children of the flesh" category is a reference to ethnic Jews, not some sub-class of human beings in general.

Pharoah is simply not a child of the flesh as Paul is using the term "flesh" here in chapter 9 - to refer to fellow Jews - "kinsmen after the flesh" - people who are simply genetically descended from Abraham.

It seems to me that the entire trajectory of your argument is to get the "vessels of destruction" category to contain all human beings who are "of the flesh" and thereby conclude that Gentiles are in the category of "vessels of destruction".

If this is what you are doing, you are not honouring the fine details of what Paul actually writes - in this chapter, he uses the "children of flesh" image to denote ethnic Jews - those genetically descended from Abraham.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have never stated that God can only harden Jews.

What I have stated is that, in Romans 9 to 11, Paul is describing a specific hardening of the nation of Israel.

No one has ever disputed the specific application to Israel! However, you cannot limit a GENERAL truth simply because it has a specific application, especially when the full application is spelled out in Romans 9:24 to include both Jews and Gentiles.

I am not sure what your critique of my position is here. I obviously agree that God can harden Gentiles and did harden Gentiles.

If you are not sure it is because you have not read what I said CAREFULLY but just skimmed over it. Re-read what I said and you wont be able to continue in uncertainty to what I have said.

But you have not engaged my argument that we need understand the "vessels of destruction" need not include Gentiles.

This is a joke! An absolute joke! Anyone reading my last post can see that I took your argument head on and dismantled it completely. Just read it again.

Nowhere in Romans 9 does Paul talk about Gentiles using the language "children of the flesh" - he uses the term "children of the flesh here to denote ethnic Jews.

You obviously don't understand a single syllable of what Paul says in Romans 9:6-8. You don't understand the problem he is repudiating! I have spelled it out in simple language even though Paul spells it out in simple language. I have spelled it out so many times I am growing weary of repeating it.

Look at Romans 9:3-5 and you will see the benefits given to Israel as the elect nation of God. The problem he is specificaly addressing is that the nation of Israel has rejected those privilges when they rejected Christ as he is the summation of those promises and now the issue is whether that rejection means that God's promise to Abraham has failed (Rom. 9:6)????

Look at Romans 9:6-8 and he is very explicit in denying that the word/promise/covenant to Abraham has failed because the promise was never given to Israel on a strictly PHYSICAL relationship to Abraham. He explicitly states that those only born PHYSICALLY are not the children of God but they are simply born after the fleshly nature of Abraham. If you can't see this I can't help you see it. In other words, more than a PHYSICAL BIRTH is necessary to be a child of promise. If you can't see that, then the same writer - Paul - spells it out using the very same example in Galatians 4:28-29:

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

All of ethnic Israel "are the children of the flesh" of Abraham! Therefore, the children of promise means that something other than a NATURAL BIRTH is required or there is no distinction at all and Paul's argument is foolish and silly. So what is required by Paul to be children of promise if it is not PHYSICAL BIRTH or a PHYSICAL relationship to Abraham? The answer is in the negation "these are not the CHILDREN OF GOD." You cannot be a child of God by natural birth! Ask Nicodemus (Jn. 3;3-9)??? In other words, for an ethnic Jew to be a child of promise, meaning, a child of God, there must be something additional to NATURAL birth. Isaac is a TYPE of something different than a NATURAL birth. His birth was typical of a SUPERNATURAL birth. A birth where neither the will of Isaac, or Abraham or Sarah was involved but only the will of God (Jn. 1:13). A birth according to God's timing not man's. A birth that was not aided, or assisted by human ability as both the womb of Sariah was "Dead" and Abraham was regarded as "DEAD" in assisting this birth (Rom. 4:18-19). A birth not like that of Ishmael.

I suspect that you will invoke other texts from elsewhere in the letter or other letters to make the case that "children of the flesh" must include Gentiles. The problem with that is it is clear that Paul uses the term "flesh" in a variety of ways - sometimes to refer to the state of fallen man, sometimes to refer to ethnic Jews. Here, in chapter 9, he is clearly using it to refer to ethnic Jews.

.

If you are still incapable of clearly seeing that Paul is using the phrase "children of the flesh" in contrast to "children of God" in a spiritual sense, in regard of natural versus supernatural birth then there is no sense in talking any further as the only other alternative makes Paul a blathering fool. If Paul's own interpretative language of Romans 9:6-8 in Galatians 3:28-29 is not clear and explicit then NOTHING will ever be clear and explicit in your mind.

It seems to me that you are making two unjustified moves:

1. Assuming that Paul includes Gentiles as "children of the flesh" here.
2. Assuming that the "vessels of destruction" category maps to the "children of flesh" category.

In regard to #1: The fact that Paul includes Gentiles in the very category ("vessels of mercy" "children of God" "children of promise") that he is contrasting with "the children of flesh" "vessels of wrath" demonstrates your logic is not contextually based. He has expanded the children of promise from Jews in Romans 9:6-8 to include Gentiles in Romans 9:24. He has explicitly used a gentile individual (Pharoah) as the very example of those he hardens (Rom. 9:15-18) as a vessel of wrath and to assert that gentiles are not equally included as "vessels of wrath" when NO STATED EXAMPLES OF GENTILES are found and yet included in the vessels of mercy is total irrationality and total blindness to the context.

Your restrictive thinking directly contradicts Paul's own interpretative words of the very same person (Isaac) in Galatians 4:28-29 where the "us" is the same "us" in Romans 9:24.

In regard to #2: Are you really serious? Will you argue that the two categories initially defined (1) Children of the flesh versus (2) children of God/children of promise are not a contrast between unregenerate/lost versus regenerate/saved persons? If not, then what distinction is there between the word "children" in regard to the "flesh" verus to "God"???????????? Will you argue that the same spiritual distinction is not carried on right through verse 24?

1. Isaac (vessel of mercy) versus Ishmael (vessel of wrath)
2. Jacob (vessle of mercy) versus Esau (vessel of wrath)
3. Pharoah (vessel of wrath) hardened
4. Those on whom he will have "mercy" (vessel of mercy)
5. Vessels of wrath - hardened children of the flesh
6. vessels of mercy illustrating children of God.

Why do you do this?

What psychological need is fulfilled when you insult other people?

Besides, you have demonstrably not undermined my argument in any sense.

I have totally abolished your interpretative basis.

Why? I don't do this with those I engage who are intellectually honest and seeking to interpret the context with integrity. Those kinds of persons are obvious. However, your type is equally obvious. You come to the context with an agenda and it does not matter how often your arguments are exposed as pure stupidity it will not change your course one bit becuase you are 100% committed to a theory and will just change colors, change arguments, change positions until you are driven into a corner and then you will not change at all but just conclude the argument is useless and we are at an impasse. I have debated with your type hundreds of times and I know this type after about three or four discussions into a matter. They have the spirit of error controlling their mind (1 Tim. 4:1) and they are out to disciple others to their error not matter how often and how obvious their error is exposed as error. There are a few others of your type on this forum. It is easy to spot your type as they are spiritually blinded to the obvious and are not about to change regardless of the evidence against their position.

 

[Andre]

The previous immediate developmental context totally repudiates your departure at this point from the contextual development of Pauls' argument.

No.

Verses 6-8 provide the primary distinction of this context. In verses 9-13 the same distinction is illustrated among Jews. In verses 15-18 the same distinction is made among Gentiles and defended. In verses 19-24 the same distinction is made by the combining of both Jews and Gentiles. If you cannot understand this, we are at an impasse, as it is you, not I, that depart from the contextual developmental point established in verses 6-8 and illustrated by Jews (9-13) by gentiles (15-18) and finally by both Jews and Gentiles (vv. 19-24) and if you cannot see that, then you simply are choosing what you want to see rather than the facts of the context.

This is not a valid line of argument.

There are distinctions being drawn as the passage evolves, but, as I have already argued in detail, this still does not require us to see the vessels of destruction as including Gentiles.

You really need to engage the actual content of the argument post 125.

 

[Andre]

No one has ever disputed the specific application to Israel! However, you cannot limit a GENERAL truth simply because it has a specific application, especially when the full application is spelled out in Romans 9:24 to include both Jews and Gentiles.

Not the point.

You are placed in the very difficult position of having to explain how it is that, in the middle of what is indisputably a detailed overview of the entire covenant history of Israel, Paul has seemingly inserted a general theological statement with no particular Jewish specificity whatsoever - your take on the potter metaphor has no "Israel-specificity" at all, since you see Jews and Gentiles in both categories of vessels.

This is really by itself sufficient reason to doubt your position - competent writers like Paul would not veer off in the middle of an argument focused on Israel's history - to make some broad point that has nothing to do with Israel at all.

My take on the potter metaphor, by contrast functions perfectly both as an explanation of why the Jews are in the sad state they are in - which is, after all the topic on Paul's mind as he opens the chapter, and as a specifically historical thing that has happened to Israel.

Remember - from 9:6 to the middle of 10, Paul has recalled in miniature the entire history of the nation of Israel, from Abraham to her present state.

Making a statement about God hardening Israel fits perfectly in the middle of, yes, an Israel history.

A statement about the pre-destination of human beings in general is neither an historical event (it occurs at the very beginning of time), nor is it Israel-specific.

Let's be clear - the fact that the hardening of the Jews has benefited Gentiles does not change the clear theme of an Israel history being presented here. The fact that Gentiles are identified as benefiting from what has happened to Israel does not make it any less an Israel history.

 

[Andre]

If you are not sure it is because you have not read what I said CAREFULLY but just skimmed over it. Re-read what I said and you wont be able to continue in uncertainty to what I have said.

Your english was unclear. The following is simply not properly written:

Your actual words above are in complete agreement with my position not your position. My position is that the example of Pharoah is in illustration how God can harden "PEOPLE" (Jews and gentiles) and in specifically gentiles such as Pharoah and Jew such as Ishmael and Esau all named in the context that are examples of children born after the flesh rather than the children of promise.

What does the phrase "and in specifically Gentiles" mean?

Please do not blame me for your english.

 

[Andre]

But you have not engaged my argument that we need understand the "vessels of destruction" need not include Gentiles.

This is a joke! An absolute joke! Anyone reading my last post can see that I took your argument head on and dismantled it completely. Just read it again.

It is no joke. To engage my argument, you would have to actually address its contents, not make some other case.

If you can take specific statements from my argument and show how they are mistaken, please do so.

 

[Andre]

You obviously don't understand a single syllable of what Paul says in Romans 9:6-8. You don't understand the problem he is repudiating! I have spelled it out in simple language even though Paul spells it out in simple language. I have spelled it out so many times I am growing weary of repeating it.

Its too bad that the text does not actually support your interpretation. Repeating what is demonstrably an incorrect argument does not make it right, for all the frequent repetition.

Look at Romans 9:3-5 and you will see the benefits given to Israel as the elect nation of God. The problem he is specificaly addressing is that the nation of Israel has rejected those privilges when they rejected Christ as he is the summation of those promises and now the issue is whether that rejection means that God's promise to Abraham has failed (Rom. 9:6)????

You are absolutely right and my argument fits perfectly with this problem statement.

When Paul uses the "vessels of destruction" metaphor to denote hardened Jews he is providing an explanation of why Israel is in the sad state she is in.

This is really quite simple: (1) Israel is in a sad state; (2) how did she get into this sad state? Answer: God hardened her, like a potter hardens a vessel fit for destruction.

Now, please tell us, how does God hardening both Jew and Gentile function as an explanation as to why Israel is in a sad state.

It would seem that if the problem on the table were the sad state of lost human beings in general, then, and only then, would a story about how God has hardened both some Jews and some Gentiles function as an explanation of the problem.

But that is not the problem on the table - the problem on the table is the state of, yes, Israel.

 

[Andre]

But it is simply incorrect reasoning to argue thus:

1. The vessels of mercy contain Jews and Gentiles;
2. Therefore the vessels of destruction contain both Jews and Gentiles.

Point 1 is obviously true - no one is denying that the vessels of mercy contain both Jews and Gentile. But point 2 simply does not follow logically.

It is not incorrect reasoning if the immediate preceding context and primary argument of Paul is the basis for exegesis.

I agree. If the immediate preceding context supported concluding that Gentiles are in the "vessels of destruction" category, then fine.

It does follow logically if you pay attention to the immediate context preceding verses 19-23. It is a GENTILE not a Jew that Paul sets forth as the example of HARDENING. Your position would have required Paul to use either Ishmael or Esau as the examples of hardening if Paul's point is to restrict hardening to Jews only in either Romans 9:15-18 or Romans 9:19-23.

It should be clear that my postion does not require what you are saying it requires.

I have already entirely addressed this point - Paul is certainly within his right to give examples of God hardening anybody, Jews, Gentile, Norwegians, tall people, Republicans, whatever to establish the general principle that God has the right to harden, and then to proceed to his specific conclusion which makes perfects sense as an explanation of the sad state of Israel - namely that He has hardened her.

Furthermore, the entire context is talking about INDIVIDUALISM rather than NATIONALISM. He is explicitly repudiating individual salvation based upon NATIONAL ELECTION.

The argument is one about the hardening of the substantial majority of Jews. Now of course, each Jew that is hardened is an individual. But this does not mean that Paul is not free to restrict his treatment to a hardening that has happened to Jews only.

It is the Phariseeical position that because I am born into the ELECT NATION with its NATIONAL privileges given to Abraham then I am a child of God. That is the very issue he is repudiating in Romans 9:3-8. The elect national priviledges are stated in verses 3-5 and his repudiation that natural born Jews are the children of God in verses 6-8.

I have repeatedly agreed with this - it does no damage at all to my argument.

For him to revert to NATIONALISM in verses 9-13 would be to repudiate what he said in verses 6-8. For him to revert to NATIONALISM in verses 9-13 would demand he makes a distinction WITHIN national Israel between the children of Promise and those born after the flesh but then provide absolutely no grounds for distinguishing between the two in verses 9-23.

There is no incoherence in Paul doing the following: Providing all sorts of examples of God hardening people of any kind to establish that God has the right to do what he wants, and then leverage that general principle to support a specific a conclusion that God has hardened a particular set of people - most Jews.

Romans 9:15-18 again is making INDIVDUAL distinctions between vessels of "mercy" versus vessels of wrath "hardeneth" and it is a GENTILE that is provided as an illustration of a vessel of wrath and hardening. According to your rationale, this should exclude all Jews as objects (vessels) of mercy in Romans 9:15-18 since the illustration is restriced to a gentile as that is exactly the insane rationale you use in verses 19-23.

I have repeatedly addressed this. If you can engage my argument do so. Calling my rationale "insane" is not going to convince the careful reader.

There is, as I have clearly demonstrated, no basis to say "just because the vessels of mercy cagtegory contains Gentiles, the vessels of destruction category must contain them as well".

I have already addressed this in grisly detail. Perhaps I can formulate another way to make the point.

To argue that the chosen INDIVIDUAL Pharoah is the example of hardening, thus a vessel of wrath in verses 15-18 but excluded as a "vessel of wrath" in verses 19-23 should equally exclude any gentile as a "vessel of mercy" as it is irrational to argue that there are INDIVIDUAL gentiles "vessles of mercy" but no INDIVIDUAL gentiles "vessels of wrath" who have been hardened when the very preceding context explicitly identifies an INDIVIDUAL gentile that was hardened and thus a vessle of wrath.

I believe this is incorrect logic, for reasons already provided in detail.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have addressed every single argument you have given in #125 and demonlished every singel argument any objective reader can easily see that. You have conveniently passed over my arguments and very carefully selected only the ones that suite you.

Not the point.

It most certainly is the point as verse 24 clearly demonstrates that more than JEWS have been brought into this application. It is most certainly the point as Gentiles are inserted by application through out chapters 9-11. If Gentiles were totally excluded from any application in chapter nine, chapter ten, chapter eleven you would have a point but they are not.

You are placed in the very difficult position of having to explain how it is that, in the middle of what is indisputably a detailed overview of the entire covenant history of Israel, Paul has seemingly inserted a general theological statement with no particular Jewish specificity whatsoever - your take on the potter metaphor has no "Israel-specificity" at all, since you see Jews and Gentiles in both categories of vessels.

You are intentionally distorting my position as you know fully well I have never denied a specific application to Israel in chapters 9-11. However, the specific application is not restricted to Israel but generally applied to Gentiles throughout these chapters.

1. Romans 9:24-26,30 applies the previous specificities to Gentiles in general

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 ¶ As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God....
30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.



2. Romans 10:8-17 applies the previous specificities to Gentiels in general

12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


3. Romans 11:20-25; 30 applies the same specificiites to Gentiles in general

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in......
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

The above application to Gentiles is the threat of HARDENING just as the present case of Israel.

This is really by itself sufficient reason to doubt your position - competent writers like Paul would not veer off in the middle of an argument focused on Israel's history - to make some broad point that has nothing to do with Israel at all.

Competent writers NEVER take a GENERAL TRUTH and totally restrict to something less then GENERAL. The issue here is who are the children of promise or covenant children of Abraham. The GENERAL TRUTH is that they are all the elect of God both Jews and Gentiles. The specific area of investigation is who are they among ethnic Israel (Rom. 9:6-8). If Paul was making your argument he would not have included either Pharoah (9:17) as the example of hardening and gentiles as examples of "vessles of mercy" as according to you that is VEERING OFF in the very middle off in the middle of a JEWISH only focus! However, if my interpretation is correct and he is dealing with the GENERAL truth of children of promise in a specific Jewish context then the inclusion of Gentiles is not ony necessary but the absence of such would infer a DENIAL OF THIS GENERAL TRUTH applicable to all the children after the flesh in contrast to children after the Spirit just as Paul applies it in Gal. 4:28-29 where his application DEMANDS he is referring to the historical Jewish Isaac in Romans 9:6-8.

My take on the potter metaphor, by contrast functions perfectly both as an explanation of why the Jews are in the sad state they are in - which is, after all the topic on Paul's mind as he opens the chapter, and as a specifically historical thing that has happened to Israel.

According to your own argument a competent writer would never veer off to include someone or something completely different than his focus. You say the restricted focus of this illustration is Israel but Paul includes an emphatic denial that readers do not make your conclusion to this illustration:

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Notice that "of the" Jews means PART and "of the" Gentiles means PART. The other part are vessels of wrath with specificity to the Jews.

 

[Andre]

You are intentionally distorting my position as you know fully well I have never denied a specific application to Israel in chapters 9-11. However, the specific application is not restricted to Israel but generally applied to Gentiles throughout these chapters.

1. Romans 9:24-26,30 applies the previous specificities to Gentiles in general

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 ¶ As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God....
30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

This does not rescue you from the deep challenge you face.

I have already dealt with this. It makes perfect sense for Paul to talk about what God has accomplished in his dealings with Israel - namely the ingathering of Gentiles into the family of God.

So for Paul to say this is perfectly coherent - the reference to a blessing that has accrued to Gentiles is perfectly reasonable in the context of an Israel-history, if, of course, it can be connected to that history in some sense. And connect it Paul does through his argument that this blessing is the consequence of hardening that has happened to Israel.

What doesn't make sense, of course, is that a statement of the hardening of both Jews and Gentiles blesses both Jews and Gentiles belongs in the middle of an Israel history.

And this is what you are asking the reader to accept.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you don't know the problem Paul is addressing you certainly cannot correctly understand the solution he is providing! This is your situation.

This does not rescue you from the deep challenge you face.

I have absolutely NO CHALLENGES. What I have facing me is utter eisgetical nonsense.

I have already dealt with this. It makes perfect sense for Paul to talk about what God has accomplished in his dealings with Israel - namely the ingathering of Gentiles into the family of God.

This application of the Potter's illustration to Gentiles sinks your theory that it is strictly applied to JEWS. Remember your past argument? You argued that this potter illustration is never APPLIED to Gentiles and therefore it must be understood and restricted in application to JEWS ONLY! That was your argument! You also argued that no competent writer who was focusing on a specific point would veeor off and include/apply such a JEWISH characterization to Gentiles. You can blather all you like, but the fact is that Paul is directly applying this POTTER ILLUSTRATION to Gentiles as the grammatical connection between verse 24 and verse 23 is undeniable. Explain it however you please, but this direct application of the Potter illustration to Gentiles denies that it is a RESTRICTED Jewish analogy.

He is not talking about a PAST accomplishment but a PRESENT accomplishment as Paul and all Jewish believers with their Gentile counterparts are PRESENTLY included in this "vessels of mercy" application.

What doesn't make sense, of course, is that a statement of the hardening of both Jews and Gentiles blesses both Jews and Gentiles belongs in the middle of an Israel history.

And this is what you are asking the reader to accept.

You just previously said the vessels of mercy incorporate Gentiles as a PAST accomplishment and now you deny that such an inclusion of such acomplishment belongs in the middle of an Israel history!!!!!!!!!!! Make up your mind! Either Paul does insert Gentiles into the middle of an Israel history or he does not! Romans 9:24 makes you into a liar if you deny Paul inserts Gentiles into what you define as a context of Jewish history.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This does not rescue you from the deep challenge you face.

You do not have a case! I have dismantled every argument you have marshalled for your defense! Any HONEST reader can easily see that.

However, as I correctly identified your character, you will not change regardless of the evidence that completely destroys your position. Why? Because you are committed 100% in approaching scripture to make it fit your position and the only change you will make is a change of argument. Every post you present vividly demonstrates the correctness of my assessment of you as a person. Your not interested in the truth at all. You are interested in defending your unbiblical theories and deceiving the souls of men.

 

[Andre]

You do not have a case! I have dismantled every argument you have marshalled for your defense! Any HONEST reader can easily see that.

However, as I correctly identified your character, you will not change regardless of the evidence that completely destroys your position. Why? Because you are committed 100% in approaching scripture to make it fit your position and the only change you will make is a change of argument. Every post you present vividly demonstrates the correctness of my assessment of you as a person. Your not interested in the truth at all. You are interested in defending your unbiblical theories and deceiving the souls of men.

Non Sequitir (again).

 

[Andre]

I2. Romans 10:8-17 applies the previous specificities to Gentiels in general

12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

This argument cannot work.

You are basically saying "because Romans 10 places the Jew and Gentile on even footing, this means that God cannot have hardened Jews to the exclusion of Gentiles.

I will let Paul answer this line of reasoning:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

A clear statement that Jews, yes Jews in particular, were hardened unto transgression with salvific implications for Gentiles.

Romans 9 to the middle of 10 is a history. The fact that God now, as of the cross has completed his use of Israel, by hardening her so that the world can be saved, does not, of course, mean that he was not hardening her in the past.

Which, of course, is why Paul refers to the hardening of Jewish "vessels of destruction" before his Romans 9-10 history of Israel catches up with the present.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Non Sequitir (again).

Your eisgetical problem is due tothe fact that you are ignorant of the particular objection that Paul is providing a solution to in Romans 9-11.

A. The objection in Romans 9 is that God's covenant promise to Israel must have failed since Israel as an ethnic NATION rejected Christ because all the promises are in Christ as Romans 1-8 has proven.

Paul's solution to this objection is that salvation is not NATIONAL but INDIVIDUAL and it is not by NATURAL birth but by SUPERNATURAL birth and therefore it is not obtained to those who are children of the flesh but rather by those who are children of God.

Therefore, any interpretation of Romans 9:1-24 that depends upon a NATIONALISTIC restriction or basis is false and contradictory to the whole solution Paul is providing.

The restrictive NATIONALISTIC ideology is the very basis of your entire interpretation and focus of Romans 9:1-24.

B. The objection in Romans 9:30-10:4 is that righteousness comes by way of obedience to Mosaic law given solely to Israel.

Paul's solution is that the righteousness of the law is satisfied by Christ completely and since the Mosaic law in regard to form is more comprehensive than any other revelation of God's Law, then satisfaction of the greater is inclusive of satisfaction of the lessor. His life and death make a complete propitation and that completed propitiation is the object of faith proclaimed in the gospel (Rom. 10:4,8-17).

C. The objection is that God has forever rejected and turned away from Israel as an ethnic nation (Rom. 11:1-2) because they have presently rejected the gospel of Christ (Rom. 10:18-21).

Paul's solution is that this national rejectin of the gospel is TEMPORARY. They have only "stumbled" but they have not "fallen" entirely out of God's redemptive covenant promise to Abraham. This TEMPORARY stumbling gives occasion for God to call out of the gentiles those "vessels of mercy" (Rom. 9:24). When the fullness of the gentiles come in (Rom. 9:25) or all the "vessles of mercy" are saved then God will return to Israel as a nation and "all Israel" as an ethnic nation will be saved but it will be done on an INDIVUDALISTIC basis. The day of Pentecost is a miniature example of what will occurs on the day of Christ's advent from heaven (Rom. 11:25-28). At penetocost a group of Jews were saved all at once but it was INDIVIDUALISTIC.

I have presented grammatical and contextual evidence (which you have not even attempted to refute) that proves the Israel in verse 25 is the same Israel in verse 26 and the Israel in verse 26 is the same referred in plural pronouns "they" and "their" in verses 27-28 which are presently "ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL" for the sake of Gentiles presently but in regard to redemptive election they are beloved by the Father.

You don't understand the objections Paul is facing and therefore you misintepret his solutions to those objections.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Non Sequitir (again).

On the contary! My arguments are exegetically sound and therefore my conclusions are necessarily true. Proof? You have ignored the technicalities of my arguments and in some cases ignored some arguments completely while I have directly addressed and dismanteled every single one of your arguments. My assessment of your frame of mind is indisputably demonstrated by your repititous eisgetical responses.

For example, #'s 2 and 3 of post 151 are totally ignorned.

For example, the words of Paul in Galatians 4:29 "as then" applied to the very same persons and example as in Romans 9:6-8 is totally ignored.

 

[Andre]

Your eisgetical problem is due tothe fact that you are ignorant of the particular objection that Paul is providing a solution to in Romans 9-11.

A. The objection in Romans 9 is that God's covenant promise to Israel must have failed since Israel as an ethnic NATION rejected Christ because all the promises are in Christ as Romans 1-8 has proven.

And you seem to have difficulty accepting that I have repeatedly agreed with this point.

And this does not in any way challenge the position that the vessels of destruction are Jews and Jews only.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And you seem to have difficulty accepting that I have repeatedly agreed with this point.

And this does not in any way challenge the position that the vessels of destruction are Jews and Jews only.

You are the one that demanded that a competent writer would not veer off course when dealing with a specific focus are you not?????

The solution (Individual salvation) to this objection (national salvation) is the specific focus of Paul in Romans 9:6-24. Salvation is INDIVIDUALISTIC with identifying CHARACTERISTICS in contrast to the nation and to individuals within the nation with contary characteristics.

These individual characteristics cannot be restricted to JEWISH character any more than salvation can be restricted to NATIONAL character. But that is exactly what you do by your interpretation.