Romans 9

[atpollard]

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

Funny, I would have gone to Romans 8 where “Foreknew” is a WHO (relational with specific people) and not a WHAT (their future decision) that repeatedly emphasizes what God does.

 

[Charlie24]

While I agree with the above, there is another "seed" I think you're not seeing.
Something defined in the phrase, "children of promise" in Galatians 4, Charlie., which is also mentioned in Romans 9.

Doesn't tell me what I need to know, Charlie...I'm sorry.
You should be able to determine, from other parts of the Bible, who the "children of the promise" ( who are counted for the seed ) are.

Again, please see Galatians 4.
It speaks of who believers in Christ are.


By the way, I have to get up early. for work
I look forward to reading your line by line understanding of the passage tomorrow.

Have a good evening.

Dave G, you cannot understand Rom. 9 without understanding the rest of Romans and put it together.

I will say it again, the TULIP dreamers will only stick to a certain passage of Scripture they can manipulate.

Exactly what you're doing here, as all of you do.

 

[Charlie24]

Dave G, you cannot understand Rom. 9 without understanding the rest of Romans and put it together.

I will say it again, the TULIP dreamers will only stick to a certain passage of Scripture they can manipulate.

Exactly what you're doing here, as all of you do.

Nothing I say will be considered by you, I try and you place a roadblock, the signature of the TULIP dreamers.

 

[Charlie24]

Nothing I say will be considered by you, I try and you place a roadblock, the signature of the TULIP dreamers.

You are afraid of taking one page at a time and discuss it as I tried to do.

I think you're lost in Romans and only know what your so called scholars have told you!

 

[cjab]

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

Undoubtedly you also infer, and which IMO is preferable, " foreknowledge of a capacity for faith." For foreknowledge of faith infers election is somehow a reward for displaying faith, which can't be right, as election is an election to faith.

All men are ultimately treated by God as having the capacity for faith - judgement is meted out on those who don't manifest it cf. Rom 1. The question remains as an issue of what it is that God foreknows about us that merits election & God granting us faith by grace.

And the truth is, it's not open to even Christians to know it, for concerning the reprobate, "God will judge those outside the church" 1 Cor 5;13. Lack of faith is between them and God, and it remains between God and them. Only in respect of ourselves, may we be given some inkling of why we were shown mercy (cf. 1 Tim 1:13), but not so as to displace God's sovereignty in election.

As to the reprobate, we may guess that the Pharaoh of Moses's day had been an inveterate persecutor from youth, such that God chose chose him as a vessel for his wrath. But we cannot pretend to displace God's knowledge or his choice. We know only that the ever wicked Pharaoh acted in conformity with God's sovereignty and His decision to elect him to wrath.

For the bible prohibits confounding "works" with "election." In Rom 9:12 Paul says that election isn't based on reward/recompense for works: οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων (not from works), which seems to rule out reverse election of the kind you suggest, i.e. imputing election based on foreknowledge of the very works in which faith is manifest. Such foreknowledge is possessed by God, of course. But ultimately it cannot displace whatever else election is based on, which man cannot fathom.

Be careful not to make the opposite error to fatalism, which is to proclaim that you "know" what God's election is based on, whereas fatalists claim to "know" what God's election is not based on - they say it isn't based on anything intrinsic to a man, which is clearly wrong, as foreknowledge embraces absolutely everything. It is pretending to "know" that is un-biblical. Both positions are caught by Rom 9:20, and the impermissibility of talking back to God.