Romans 9

[Dave G]

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

I do, and I understand the rest of Romans as well.

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

Charlie, let's agree not to accuse one another of manipulating Scripture, OK?
I see what I see because that is how I read and understand it for myself.

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

Respectfully, all I was asking for was a repetition of what I did for you.
Nothing more, and nothing less.

Are you willing to do what I did?
If so, then I look forward to seeing how yours and mine differs in the details.

So far what I've seen in this thread are a few other posts from people that essentially give summaries;
While, for the most part, they avoid the text directly.
They also have avoided ( perhaps unintentionally ) doing exactly what I did...
Which I confess puzzles me a bit.

On a side note,
This isn't me trying to humiliate you... it's me wanting to see how you understand each line of the passage for yourself and comparing it to mine, in each and every detail.

 

[Dave G]

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

Charlie, quite the contrary.
It seems to me as if you're unwilling to do what I just did, and give your own commentary of the passage line by line.

Is there something wrong with what I'm asking you to do?

If I can do it, then in my mind I cannot understand why someone who differs in their understanding of a particular passage, can not do it;
when to me, anyone should be able to.
To me, it's become natural;
and for me, it really is a matter of reading it ( like a book or a letter) and then giving a personal understanding of it, verse by verse.

I don't believe I've asked you to do anything I'm unable or unwilling to do.
Is there some reason you are avoiding it?

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

Instead of accusing me of relying on "scholars" and anyone outside of my own personal studies of His word, why not believe exactly what I told you in other threads?

Charlie, I was an IFB growing up,....and they did not teach me this in any of the the circles I was involved in.
This came to me independently of any outside influence.

 

[Charlie24]

I do.

Charlie, let's agree not to accuse one another of manipulating Scripture, OK?
I see what I see because that is how I read and understand it for myself.

Respectfully, all I was asking for was a repetition of what I did for you.
Nothing more, and nothing less.

Are you willing to do what I did?
If so, then I look forward to seeing how yours and mine differs in the details.

On a side note,
This isn't me trying to humiliate you... it's me wanting to see how you understand each line of the passage for yourself and comparing it to mine, in each and every detail.

I was hoping and I've been used to in the past, discussing post by post that you have posted.

Why would I post all of Rom. 9 when you've already done that?

I was under the impression we would discuss it as you wrote it and then move on to the next verses.

We can start over it you like, I think it much better a discussion to take it in steps rather than laying it all out there.

That way we are working our way to a conclusion.

I thought I seen an unwillingness to actually discuss it, I may have been wrong.

 

[Dave G]

I was hoping and I've been used to in the past, discussing post by post that you have posted.

Why would I post all of Rom. 9 when you've already done that?

Because I would like to see where we differ in the details, Charlie.

I was under the impression we would discuss it as you wrote it and then move on to the next verses.

If you'll refer to my posts, you'll see that I wasn't asking for that format, sir.
Rather, I was hoping that you'd answer as I did.

I thought I made that clear, perhaps I did not.
At any rate, please forgive me for any misuderstanding.

 

[Charlie24]

Because I would like to see where we differ in the details, Charlie.

If you'll refer to my posts, you'll see that I wasn't asking for that format, sir.
Rather, I was hoping that you'd answer as I did.

I thought I made that clear, perhaps I did not.
At any rate, please forgive me for any misuderstanding.

OK, we'll do it your way and have open discussion of our differences I suppose.

Romans 9 coming up.

 

[Dave G]

OK, we'll do it your way and have open discussion of our differences I suppose.

I'm not sure we have to discuss the differences, Charlie,
As I'm fairly sure that I'll be able to tell what those differences are, the minute that I see how your line of thought is progressing through the passage.

But we can discuss it if you like.

 

[Charlie24]

OK, we'll do it your way and have open discussion of our differences I suppose.

Romans 9 coming up.

This will take a while, so I will send it in sections.


Rom. 1:1
Paul is telling us that he is speaking the truth, his spirit is in tune with the Holy Spirit bearing witness.

2-3 Paul is grieving over the fact of his countrymen (Jews) are in the state of unbelief.

4 He says the Israelites, the adoption and covenants, and the Law, and promises of God have been given to them.
The adoption is referring to God choosing Israel above all the nations on earth for a particular purpose.

5 "whose are the fathers" speaking of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the flesh that Christ came through of the Jews.

6 "not as though the Word of God has not taken effect" refers to even though Israel failed in their calling by rejecting Christ, the Redeemer promised through the fathers of Israel still came.

"For they are not all Israel which are of Israel" as we will see in the next verses, this refers to Israel's claim of national salvation through the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not all the Israelites are of the faith of their fathers.

7 "neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children" here Paul is flat out saying that Israel's claim of national salvation through the seed of Abraham is false.
"But in Isaac shall your seed be called" Paul here is confirming that the promises of God to Abraham will go to the descendants of Isaac, that means Ishmael is excluded from the birthright.

 

[Charlie24]

This will take a while, so I will send it in sections.


Rom. 1:1
Paul is telling us that he is speaking the truth, his spirit is in tune with the Holy Spirit bearing witness.

2-3 Paul is grieving over the fact of his countrymen (Jews) are in the state of unbelief.

4 He says the Israelites, the adoption and covenants, and the Law, and promises of God have been given to them.
The adoption is referring to God choosing Israel above all the nations on earth for a particular purpose.

5 "whose are the fathers" speaking of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the flesh that Christ came through of the Jews.

6 "not as though the Word of God has not taken effect" refers to even though Israel failed in their calling by rejecting Christ, the Redeemer promised through the fathers of Israel still came.

"For they are not all Israel which are of Israel" as we will see in the next verses, this refers to Israel's claim of national salvation through the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not all the Israelites are of the faith of their fathers.

7 "neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children" here Paul is flat out saying that Israel's claim of national salvation through the seed of Abraham is false.
"But in Isaac shall your seed be called" Paul here is confirming that the promises of God to Abraham will go to the descendants of Isaac, that means Ishmael is excluded from the birthright.

8 "That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God." This further refutes the national claim of salvation by the Jews, believing they are the children of God by the flesh of Abraham's seed.

"but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" Paul is telling them that those who believe in the promise of God to Abraham of the coming Christ (the Seed) are the children of God.

9-10 Paul is saying that Sarah would have a son (Isaac) and Rebecca would have a son (Jacob). Paul is following the promised birthright leading to Christ by faith, while at the same time continuing to shoot down Israel's claim of national salvation.

11 "for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls."

This referring to Isaac and Esau, the twin brothers. God could have chosen either twin as the birthright leading to Christ, but through His foreknowledge, that His election is based on, He seen Isaac as the one who would believe and elected him as the birthright.

"not of works" God's decision was not based on any merit of Isaac.

"but of Him who calls" His choice was based upon His calling, which is in the sense of His foreknowledge knowing Isaac would freely accept the call, whereas Esau would not.

 

[Aaron]

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."

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the active agents in this passage. What did the Elect bring? They brought nothing.

 

[Charlie24]

8 "That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God." This further refutes the national claim of salvation by the Jews, believing they are the children of God by the flesh of Abraham's seed.

"but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" Paul is telling them that those who believe in the promise of God to Abraham of the coming Christ (the Seed) are the children of God.

9-10 Paul is saying that Sarah would have a son (Isaac) and Rebecca would have a son (Jacob). Paul is following the promised birthright leading to Christ by faith, while at the same time continuing to shoot down Israel's claim of national salvation.

11 "for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls."

This referring to Isaac and Esau, the twin brothers. God could have chosen either twin as the birthright leading to Christ, but through His foreknowledge, that His election is based on, He seen Isaac as the one who would believe and elected him as the birthright.

"not of works" God's decision was not based on any merit of Isaac.

"but of Him who calls" His choice was based upon His calling, which is in the sense of His foreknowledge knowing Isaac would freely accept the call, whereas Esau would not.

12 The birthright by standard should have gone to Esau being the firstborn. In the physical, Esau never served Isaac, we have here a spiritual application. Isaac would ascend over Esau in the sense that the "sin nature" (Esau) would serve the "divine nature" Isaac, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

13 God DID NOT arbitrarily hate Esau. It was quite the opposite, Esau hated God and chose that path., and Isaac loved God and chose that path.
The apostle Paul in Rom. 5:8 made it clear "God commended His love toward us, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

14 Paul asked the question if there is unrighteousness with God, he answers his own question by saying, God forbid. This is concerning God's election of Isaac for the birthright over the firstborn Esau. There can be no unrighteousness in God's decisions.

Taking a break

 

[Charlie24]

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the active agents in this passage. What did the Elect bring? They brought nothing.

Yes, I agree! The active agent of foreknowledge.

 

[Dave G]

@Charlie24 :

Thank you for posting all that, and I can see already that our respective understandings of the passage begin to diverge at verses 6-7.
The gap continues to widen, and by the end of verse 11, I see you concluding that the Lord foresaw Isaac's belief and chose Him based on Isaac's freewill choice.

In other words, it appears to me that you see the Lord choosing Isaac over Ishmael, and Jacob over Esau as "symbols" of the sin nature and divine natures, and God's choice of them as part of a program of salvation by faith and not of works.

By verse 13 it diverges quite a bit.

I see God choosing to love Jacob and hate Esau as persons, with a purpose and a plan for those two lineages... as well as choosing to love one and hate the other person in perfect righteousness.
Specifically, He chose to love Jacob through His purely unmerited favor and desire to show him His grace, while choosing to hate Esau through purely His holiness, disfavor and desire to show him His wrath ...

Simply to show us that He is God, and nothing that He does is ever done in unrighteousness;
Which goes against anything that we as men think is "fair".

On the contents of verse 14 we very much see things differently.


I look forward to your next post(s).

 

[Charlie24]

12 The birthright by standard should have gone to Esau being the firstborn. In the physical, Esau never served Isaac, we have here a spiritual application. Isaac would ascend over Esau in the sense that the "sin nature" (Esau) would serve the "divine nature" Isaac, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

13 God DID NOT arbitrarily hate Esau. It was quite the opposite, Esau hated God and chose that path., and Isaac loved God and chose that path.
The apostle Paul in Rom. 5:8 made it clear "God commended His love toward us, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

14 Paul asked the question if there is unrighteousness with God, he answers his own question by saying, God forbid. This is concerning God's election of Isaac for the birthright over the firstborn Esau. There can be no unrighteousness in God's decisions.

Taking a break

15 "For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy..." Paul is here giving an example of the mercy of God through Moses.

This example comes from Exodus 33:19, where Moses would not move on with God's will unless God made Himself seen. No man had ever seen God, and God was obliged to give Moses his wish, I won't get into the details, you can read it in Exodus 19.

God honored his request because Moses met the requirements of faith. God has mercy on those who meet His conditions.

16 Concerning man meeting the conditions of God, Paul says "not of him who wills" meaning God will not have mercy and compassion on man who wills his own way to meet those conditions, "nor of him who runs" nor will He have mercy on man who works for his salvation, "but of God who shows mercy." God lays down the rules for man, and if man meets those conditions, He shows the mercy.

17 Now we come to Pharaoh who would not meet the conditions of the Lord, he was determined to rebel against God's will. Moses was the example of God showing mercy by meeting His conditions, and Pharaoh is the example of God denying mercy to man who will not meet His conditions

Pharaoh's heart was hardened against God from the beginning, he would not meet God's conditions. The opposite of mercy was meted out to him. When God hardened his heart it was a doubling down by God of what Pharaoh wanted and deserved. God through His foreknowledge knew Pharaoh would rebel to the end, but our merciful God gave him chance after chance to meet God's condition, but he refused. This Pharaoh will have no excuse on judgement day, as no one else will have an excuse.

18 God will have mercy on whom He will, by meeting His conditions, and if man rebels, He will harden whom He will through His foreknowledge.

 

[Charlie24]

15 "For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy..." Paul is here giving an example of the mercy of God through Moses.

This example comes from Exodus 33:19, where Moses would not move on with God's will unless God made Himself seen. No man had ever seen God, and God was obliged to give Moses his wish, I won't get into the details, you can read it in Exodus 19.

God honored his request because Moses met the requirements of faith. God has mercy on those who meet His conditions.

16 Concerning man meeting the conditions of God, Paul says "not of him who wills" meaning God will not have mercy and compassion on man who wills his own way to meet those conditions, "nor of him who runs" nor will He have mercy on man who works for his salvation, "but of God who shows mercy." God lays down the rules for man, and if man meets those conditions, He shows the mercy.

17 Now we come to Pharaoh who would not meet the conditions of the Lord, he was determined to rebel against God's will. Moses was the example of God showing mercy by meeting His conditions, and Pharaoh is the example of God denying mercy to man who will not meet His conditions

Pharaoh's heart was hardened against God from the beginning, he would not meet God's conditions. The opposite of mercy was meted out to him. When God hardened his heart it was a doubling down by God of what Pharaoh wanted and deserved. God through His foreknowledge knew Pharaoh would rebel to the end, but our merciful God gave him chance after chance to meet God's condition, but he refused. This Pharaoh will have no excuse on judgement day, as no one else will have an excuse.

18 God will have mercy on whom He will, by meeting His conditions, and if man rebels, He will harden whom He will through His foreknowledge.

Very important point to make at this point of Rom. 9.

Paul is directing all of this to Israel. He is determined to completely destroy Israel's claim of national salvation without faith in Christ.

This is one of the many reasons the Jews determined to kill Paul.

 

[Charlie24]

15 "For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy..." Paul is here giving an example of the mercy of God through Moses.

This example comes from Exodus 33:19, where Moses would not move on with God's will unless God made Himself seen. No man had ever seen God, and God was obliged to give Moses his wish, I won't get into the details, you can read it in Exodus 19.

God honored his request because Moses met the requirements of faith. God has mercy on those who meet His conditions.

16 Concerning man meeting the conditions of God, Paul says "not of him who wills" meaning God will not have mercy and compassion on man who wills his own way to meet those conditions, "nor of him who runs" nor will He have mercy on man who works for his salvation, "but of God who shows mercy." God lays down the rules for man, and if man meets those conditions, He shows the mercy.

17 Now we come to Pharaoh who would not meet the conditions of the Lord, he was determined to rebel against God's will. Moses was the example of God showing mercy by meeting His conditions, and Pharaoh is the example of God denying mercy to man who will not meet His conditions

Pharaoh's heart was hardened against God from the beginning, he would not meet God's conditions. The opposite of mercy was meted out to him. When God hardened his heart it was a doubling down by God of what Pharaoh wanted and deserved. God through His foreknowledge knew Pharaoh would rebel to the end, but our merciful God gave him chance after chance to meet God's condition, but he refused. This Pharaoh will have no excuse on judgement day, as no one else will have an excuse.

18 God will have mercy on whom He will, by meeting His conditions, and if man rebels, He will harden whom He will through His foreknowledge.

19 Paul knows exactly how the Jews will respond to what he has said. He sets forth questions that he knows they will ask, and Paul answers them.

"you will then say then unto me, why does He yet find fault?" "for who has resisted His will?"

Paul is referring to man finding fault with God, and they will act innocent in claiming they have not resisted God's will.

20 Paul now answers the questions, "shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast thou made me this way?" Paul is showing them their contention against God, their rebellion against God. The choosing of their own way outside of God's will.

21 Now Paul shows them that God as the Creator has the authority to do as He pleases. He shows them God is a Spirit, and they are the clay, the difference in Deity and Dust.

"Hath not the Potter the power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?"
Going back to the question as to why God made man this way, God knew when He created man he would fall. He knew He would prepare a Redeemer for lost man with some accepting Him (to honor) and most rejecting Him (to dishonor).

For God to obtain what He desired in His creation, it was necessary for God to make man the way he was made. A free moral agent to choose to love God of His own free will, not as Israel who chose their own way apart from God's will.

God made man and predestined him with free will, and all men will fall out to "honor" or "dishonor."

 

[Charlie24]

19 Paul knows exactly how the Jews will respond to what he has said. He sets forth questions that he knows they will ask, and Paul answers them.

"you will then say then unto me, why does He yet find fault?" "for who has resisted His will?"

Paul is referring to man finding fault with God, and they will act innocent in claiming they have not resisted God's will.

20 Paul now answers the questions, "shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast thou made me this way?" Paul is showing them their contention against God, their rebellion against God. The choosing of their own way outside of God's will.

21 Now Paul shows them that God as the Creator has the authority to do as He pleases. He shows them God is a Spirit, and they are the clay, the difference in Deity and Dust.

"Hath not the Potter the power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?"
Going back to the question as to why God made man this way, God knew when He created man he would fall. He knew He would prepare a Redeemer for lost man with some accepting Him (to honor) and most rejecting Him (to dishonor).

For God to obtain what He desired in His creation, it was necessary for God to make man the way he was made. A free moral agent to choose to love God of His own free will, not as Israel who chose their own way apart from God's will.

God made man and predestined him with free will, and all men will fall out to "honor" or "dishonor."

@Dave G

If it's ok with you I'll finish this tomorrow, I'm developing a brain cramp from all this thinking. lol

The reason I didn't want to do this to begin with.

But I will finish it tomorrow.

 

[cjab]

I think it's very simple "what God foreknows about us that merits election."

Rom. 4:3-5

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Where does the bible say that anyone merits election? Isn't the point of Rom 9:11 to suggest that election is of God's mercy and not of our merits?

Although God does foreknow, what and how he foreknows or determines anything is unknown to man: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Rom 11:33.

As Paul says, "It all depends on God's mercy" (Rom 9:16) and not "our merits."

 

[Charlie24]

Where does the bible say that anyone merits election? Isn't the point of Rom 9:11 to suggest that election is of God's mercy and not of our merits?

Although God does foreknow, what and how he foreknows or determines anything is unknown to man: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Rom 11:33.

As Paul says, "It all depends on God's mercy" (Rom 9:16) and not "our merits."

Actually, I took the phrase "merited election" from your post #25, 2nd paragraph.

I used that phrase so you would know what I was talking about.

It should be obvious to all here that neither of us believe in the merited favor of God as in being earned.

Just an innocent mistake, no big deal.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Charlie24

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.

This " that God in His foreknowledge looks into the future and determines His elect by free will faith." is nowhere found in the scripture, it comes from the resources of ones own mind.

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24



This " that God in His foreknowledge looks into the future and determines His elect by free will faith." is nowhere found in the scripture, it comes from the resources of ones own mind.

I believe you had better rethink that, BF.

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."