Romans 9

[Charlie24]

If you're not familiar with Romans 9 in the context of TULIP, it's a favorite place where the TULIP dreamers go thinking they have proven unconditional election. But it taint so.

Unconditional election denies that God in His foreknowledge looks into the future and determines His elect by free will faith. They believe God by His sovereign will chooses who will be saved and man does not have a choice in the matter.

But what does the Scripture say?

1 Peter 1:1-2

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

Uh-oh, yet another contradiction added to the many I posted yesterday. It's a never ending cycle of contradictions. But that is no obstacle for the TULIP dreamer, they just ignore it, it just isn't there.

So they ignore plain Scripture and say, hey let's go to Romans 9. Here they have a sure-fire fact of unconditional election, or so they think.

There are probably 3-4 places in Romans 9 they like to take you, just with a wild guess, maybe Romans 9:11 is where they keep the hammer.

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth"

Paul has been discussing Israel in the state of unbelief and is in agony over it, his fellow kinsmen, chosen of God but lost.

Paul shoots down Israel's national belief that they are saved by the circumcision covenant through Abraham their father in 9:6-9. He says, "neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall your seed be called."

They are not saved by Abraham's covenant, they must be saved by the faith of Abraham and Isaac.

Then in vs 11 Paul is speaking of Esau and Jacob, who were twins. We read again.

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth"

Look at the bold above, now remember what Peter said, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,"

Paul is speaking of the "purpose of God according to election, the same thing Peter refers to as "the elect according to the foreknowledge of God."

Paul is not speaking of an unconditional election, but the election standing by His foreknowledge of faith.

God chose Jacob as the birthright through His foreknowledge knowing Jacob would choose to believe and be saved by faith.

The purpose would be that Christ would be born into this world through the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by an election of faith.

Only by faith is Israel the children of God.

 

[Dave G]

If you're not familiar with Romans 9 in the context of TULIP, it's a favorite place where the TULIP dreamers go thinking they have proven unconditional election. But it taint so.

Unconditional election denies that God in His foreknowledge looks into the future and determines His elect by free will faith. They believe God by His sovereign will chooses who will be saved and man does not have a choice in the matter.

But what does the Scripture say?

Charlie,
So far what I've seen in your opening post, is something along the lines of what parts of it can and cannot mean... when what I was hoping for, was something a bit more than just a summary of what it does mean.

As far as a treatise or an overall summarization goes, I'm following your line of thinking... but I'm still am not seeing what I asked for in the other thread.
Rather, I'm seeing something that I would call, "topical" in its nature, which is not as thorough as I had anticipated.

As I mentioned in the other thread,
May I suggest that in order to correct someone regarding what you see as an error in their thinking, would it not be better to carefully "exegete" (expound ), Romans 9 as a chapter, line by line / "verse" by "verse"?
In my mind, that should at least settle any doubts between how you, and how those who disagree with you, are reading it and using it.

I am also confident that if this were performed, then it should effectively give those who disagree with you at least the insight into the how and the why your own mind is understanding the chapter when you read it for yourself.



On a side note,
I've seen this sort of thing done in college with math problems and the like, when the professor shows his or her work on the board... and the students then gain insight into how the instructor "got their answers".

 

[Dave G]

Also:

I'd very much like to request that as you do this, if you would please refrain from referencing anyone else's thoughts by bringing in material or ideas from things like commentaries and articles written by those who have theology backgrounds.
I'm much more interested in seeing how you read it for yourself, alone and uninfluenced by anyone outside of your own personal studies in God's word.
Scripture itself should be enough to convince anyone, as I see it.

The reason that I ask this?

Since I'm often accused of being a "Calvinist" and did not get any of my understanding from him or from anyone who is a "Calvinist / Reformed",
I think it fair that anyone who also doesn't claim to be one, should be able to articulate what they also believe from the Bible...
Without getting any of their understanding of it from "non-Calvinists / Arminians / Molinists, etc", seminaries, commentaries, articles and other things that they may agree with an author on...no matter how highly regarded they may be.

We as Christians should not only know what we believe, but we should also be able to stand all by ourselves on what it says.
In other words, I believe that a true ( and therefore personal ) belief of God's word should be something that rests with the individual, not a group or denomination.

If you like, I can start off first;
Then you can do the same thing I do, giving your own line-by-line comparison so that the readers here can see how we are each understanding the passage as a whole.

I await your reply, sir.

 

[Charlie24]

Charlie,
So far what I've seen in your opening post, is something along the lines of what parts of it can and cannot mean... when what I was hoping for, was something a bit more than just a summary of what it does mean.

As far as a treatise or an overall summarization goes, I'm following your line of thinking... but I'm still am not seeing what I asked for in the other thread.
Rather, I'm seeing something that I would call, "topical" in its nature, which is not as thorough as I had anticipated.

As I mentioned in the other thread,
May I suggest that in order to correct someone regarding what you see as an error in their thinking, would it not be better to carefully "exegete" (expound ), Romans 9 as a chapter, line by line / "verse" by "verse"?
In my mind, that should at least settle any doubts between how you, and how those who disagree with you, are reading it and using it.

I am also confident that if this were performed, then it should effectively give those who disagree with you at least the insight into the how and the why your own mind is understanding the chapter when you read it for yourself.



On a side note,
I've seen this sort of thing done in college with math problems and the like, when the professor shows his or her work on the board... and the students then gain insight into how the instructor "got their answers".

The great sin of TULIP is leaving out the theme of Scripture.

It's like the UR (Universal Restoration) focusing on what they manipulate and ignoring everything else.

 

[Zaatar71]

One reason C24 does not arrive at truth is he misunderstands rom(;6-9}

Seed of Abraham =Natural descendants....sperma Abraham

Children of promise...the elect remnant....Teknon...The elect remnant, alongside the Elect gentiles, one new man in Christ.

 

[Charlie24]

One reason C24 does not arrive at truth is he misunderstands rom(;6-9}

Seed of Abraham =Natural descendants....sperma Abraham

Children of promise...the elect remnant....Teknon...The elect remnant, alongside the Elect gentiles, one new man in Christ.

That's pretty much the way Calvin did it, reasoning himself into heresy and ignoring the sign posts along the way.

 

[Zaatar71]

That's pretty much the way Calvin did it, reasoning himself into heresy and ignoring the sign posts along the way.

No my friend, that is what the text actually says, we unlike you believe it!
For Evangelism or for Mature Audiences Only?



There is a prevalent opinion that says that Calvinism should be, if it is discussed at all, reserved for more mature Christians, not taught to new converts, and certainly never ever preached to the unbelievers in an evangelistic message. This is one result of the idea that Calvinism is somehow incompatible with evangelism. From the several sermons quoted, it is obvious that Spurgeon did not believe that Calvinism should be hidden from the unconverted nor the new believer. Why? Because Calvinism is the Gospel:

There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called .after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

Those who preach a gospel devoid of the five points commonly called Calvinism are not preaching the Gospel at all, but a false gospel.

If Calvinism is appropriate for the unconverted, certainly it is fitting for all Christians. Condemning the preachers who want to censor Calvinism, Spurgeon said: “There has sprung up in the Church of Christ an idea that there are many things taught in the Bible which are not essential .†.†. that provided we are right in the fundamentals, the other things are of no concern.

It becomes an awful thing .†.†. for men to leave a single mandate unstudied, lest we shall lead others astray, while we ourselves are acting in disobedience to God. .†.†.”20 Spurgeon said: “It were better for me that I had never been born than that I preach to these people carelessly, or keep back any part of my Master’s truth. Better to have been a devil than a preacher playing fast and loose with God’s Word, and by such means working ruin of the souls of men. .†.†. It will be the height of my ambition to be clear of the blood of all men.”21 He was, of course, referring to Acts 20:26-27, where Paul, in a farewell address to the Ephesian elders, says he was cleared of the blood of all men because he has not kept back any doctrines in his evangelism and preaching. Those who avoid the doctrines of predestination and the inability of man’s will, and who censor others from teaching them, have blood on their hands.

 

[Dave G]

The great sin of TULIP is leaving out the theme of Scripture.

Charlie,

I'm not asking for the "theme".
I'm asking for an expounding of the passage...Again, line by line and verse by verse.

Is there something wrong with what I'm asking?

I'll tell you what, I'll go first..
But I'll have to break it up into blocks, as the passage is fairly long.

 

[Charlie24]

Charlie,

I'm not asking for the "theme".
I'm asking for an expounding of the passage...Again, line by line and verse by verse.

Is there something wrong with what I'm asking?

I'll tell you what, I'll go first..
But I'll have to break it up into blocks, as the passage is fairly long.

Go ahead, I've got your #.

 

[Dave G]

" I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:
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.
( Romans 9:1-8 ).

Now, my own personal commentary on the passage, verse by verse:

1) Paul here is telling the reader that he is telling the truth in Christ...he is not lying, and his conscience is also bearing him witness in the Holy Spirit.
2) ...that he has grat heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart;
3) For he could wish ( not that he does wish, but that he could wish ) himself accursed from Christ for his brethren and kinsman according to the flesh. Who are they?
4) They are Israelites. The very same Israelites to whom the adoption and glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God were given. The very same Israelites that the promises of God under the Old Testament were given to their fathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob..
5) The very same Israelites of whom, concerning the flesh, Christ was over all of them. It was He who spoke to Moses in the burning bush, it was He who spoke to Moses, as the Word, on Mount Sinai. He then pronounces God as blessed forever.
6) Now he is revealing that it is not as though the word of God has taken no effect, or had no affect: The reason? He declares that they are not all "Israel" which are "of Israel" ( of Jacob's lineage ).
7) Neither, because they are all the seed of Abraham, are they all children. Children of whom? We're not told here. BUT, "in Isaac" God's seed will be called.
8) Now he defines what he started to say in 7, by telling us that, "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of Abraham", which means to me that the physical descendants of Abraham are not his true children...but the children of the promise are counted for "the seed". This fits other Scriptures like Galatians 4, that tell us that we as believers are the children of the promise.

More to follow.