Romans 9

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Why any man would be so smug in their interpretation that logically necessitates double predestination is beyond me. Believe as you will DW and I will do the same. It will not be long and the real truth will become clearly evident and the error exposed, and woe be to the one that promoted the error. Let it finally not be said once of one of us here Oh Lord.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Why any man would be so smug in their interpretation that logically necessitates double predestination is beyond me. Believe as you will DW and I will do the same. It will not be long and the real truth will become clearly evident and the error exposed, and woe be to the one that promoted the error. Let it finally not be said once of one of us here Oh Lord.

You are afraid to submit your interpretation to the test of God's Word. The test is objective, simple and clear.

It should be obvious that the true interpetation will have the same objections Paul anticipates and will use the same responses provided by Paul to those objections.

Here is the dirty little secret you don't want to be exposed. Your interpretation voices the exact same objections that Paul anticipates from those who oppose his interpretation in Romans 9:6-15. You would not dare defend your interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 by the responses Paul provides as those very response have no bearing your interpretation and YOU KNOW IT. Indeed his very responses expose your position as false doctrine. That is the dirty little secret and that is why you are afraid to simply allow your interpretation to be tested by this simple, obvious, objective test provided by Paul. So you will run from it and you will continue to run from it and so will all that hold your interpretation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The 'dirty little secret' is that DW clearly supports Calvinistic/Augustinian notions of election that necessitate double predestination just as Calvin admitted he did. He has certainly not proved election in the sense he believes it to be so by his interpretation of the text in Romans 9. One clear reason why? Scriptures do not support any such notion as double predestination.

"Choose ye this whom ye shall serve."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: You are afraid…. You would not dare defend your interpretation….. that is why you are afraid…… So you will run from it and you will continue to run from it

HP: You are acting as a most impatient arrogant individual DW. If I desire to write an interpretation of this passage in detail, I will when I am ready to do so and have the time to so and feel the need to do so. Your chiding arrogance and impatience will not force me to do it one whit sooner. Well able commentators would agree with me that this passage in no way supports the election of individual salvation in the least.

You always desire your favorite proof text to be examined alone in a vacuum as an island to its self, while you give lip service to comparing Scripture with Scripture and completely ignore God instilled first truths of reason. Before Scriptures were able to be read, God was at work in everyman’s life, including the heathen which have not the law, granting the tools necessary to discern some truth via first truths of reason. If you believe you are going to establish the truth of any such passage without the help of that basis God given intuitive wisdom, you are on a path to error and that without exception as you have proved by your false conclusions to this passage.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Heavenly Pilgrim "You are acting as a most impatient arrogant individual DW.Your chiding arrogance and impatience... Well able commentators would agree with me that this passage in no way supports the election of individual salvation in the least.
on a path to error and that without exception as you have proved by your false conclusions to this passage."
Well if this ain't the the pot calling the kettle black! Heavenly your not of the Baptist faith but troll here regularly to do what? Help some see the light? Discuss your view...BUT accuse other of LIES? Again,why do you come here?

 

[DHK]

The 'dirty little secret' is that DW clearly supports Calvinistic/Augustinian notions of election that necessitate double predestination just as Calvin admitted he did. He has certainly not proved election in the sense he believes it to be so by his interpretation of the text in Romans 9. One clear reason why? Scriptures do not support any such notion as double predestination.

"Choose ye this whom ye shall serve."

You choose.
Tell us what Finney would say?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Why are you so lazy DHK? Do your own research if you are so interested in his beliefs. I have a hard enough time keeping up with my own. If you want to know what he has to say, read him for yourself. His books are readily available, online as in hardback cover as far as I know. Who knows, you might learn something.

Reading Calvin certainly taught me some things. One such truth I learned well from Calvin is that you cannot logically deny double predestination coming from the view on election you and DW, by all apparent indications, hold to. See what you can learn from some one might oppose? Go get yourself some real fodder to back up your charge of heresy in regard to his beliefs instead of just believing the lies others say about him.:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: It is true therefore, chapter nine deals especially with the nation of Israel but as we shall see what is true of Israel and applied to Israel is not restricted to Israel as Romans 9:24 clearly states.

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.

DW: The central truths applied to Israel are not restricted to Israel but applicable to distinguish "the children of God" whether Jewish or Gentile.

HP: Here DW makes his big mistake with this passage. In his haste to somehow line this passage up with Augustinian/Calvinistic election, he jumps top unwarranted conclusions. DW highlights this portion

“not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”

as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations He first was speaking of. Reason in no wise makes any such leap of judgment. You simply cannot conclude as DW obviously concludes from his manner of using the text as opposed to interpreting the text. If the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated, the most one could make of the text is that God has welcomed into the family of God in the last days, both Jews and Gentiles, and that by His own volition, not having to anything with the moral character of any and regardless who the Jews believe should be the ones to inherit His blessings. The argument of God indicates that just as He was Sovereign in picking the Jewish nation to receive blessings not bestowed on any other, he was Sovereign to choose to graft in Gentiles as he so chooses to do. It does NOT indicate the means by which this is to be done, nor even the means by which the Jews became ‘spiritual’ Jews, ( certainly it does not indicate that the Jews by birth were or are grafted in God’s ‘spiritual’ kingdom by arbitrary selection as the unconditional election DW clearly indicates) but rather is simply justifying God as a Sovereign Creator to bestow certain blessings as He sees fit by His own design on even the Gentiles.

This is not a treatise on the lack of conditions for salvation, nor on the stated conditions of salvation. God appears to simply be saying, if I desire to rain upon the just and the unjust I will do so. If I desire to grant special favor to one nation of peoples as opposed to another nation of peoples including the Gentiles, I can do so for purposes known only to myself.

In conclusion, DW is in error when he reads into this text the lack of clear conditions to salvation. He tries to define for all of Scripture the lack of conditions for salvation by the fact that in this passage certain benefits granted to men by God had none. That is an unwise, unscriptural deduction without merit and was not the purpose of God in this passage or any other.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You don't understand what I asking! I am asking you either to take YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 and test it by the two criteria provided by Paul in Romans 9:17-24 OR take my position which you characterize as double predestination/calvinism and test it by the two criteria provided by Paul in Romans 9:16-24. This test is a no-brainer - it is obvious - it is objective - it is easy.

For example in regard to your Finnyism philosophy put it to the test given by Paul. How do you do that? Take the anticipated objections in Romans 9:16-24 and see if they would be the kind of objections that others would pose against your Finneyism philosophy. If they are then your philosophical position harmonizes with Paul's and thus it has passed one test.

Second, look at Pauls responses to those anticipated objections. Are these responses necessary to defend your Finnyism position? If they are then your position passes the final test and you have proven that your philosophical interpretation harmonzies with Paul's as these responses are necessary to defend his interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 as well. In other words , your position HARMONIZES with both the anticipated objections and responses.

Now, if you really want to prove my interpretation is not in agreement with Paul's interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 it is EASY and SIMPLE to prove it is not. Apply my interpretation to the same two tests. For example, would the anticipated objections in Romans 9:16-24 be the same objections thrown against my interpretation. For example, would my interpretation make you say "that makes God unrighteous, unjust" and how can God blame us for sin if God's will determines all things, for who can overturn His will?.

For example, would the responses given by Paul to these two objections harmonize with my interpretation or oppose my interpretation?


This is a no brainer test because it is so easy, so obvious and so objective, just compare and see which view harmonizes and which contradicts.

Your interpretation denies Romans 9:6-16 demands unconditional election whereas mine does - Sooooo, would the anticipated objections given by Paul defend your view or my view? Your interpretation denies absolute sovereignty of God in salvation by unconditional election - Sooooooo does Pauls responses to these anticipated objections defend your position or my position?

There is no trick here. Just compare and see if your position harmonizes or compare my position and see if it harmonizes. What could be more easier and objective - if the shoe fits, it fits and if the shoe does not fit it does not fit - it is just that simple.

HP: You are acting as a most impatient arrogant individual DW. If I desire to write an interpretation of this passage in detail, I will when I am ready to do so and have the time to so and feel the need to do so. Your chiding arrogance and impatience will not force me to do it one whit sooner. Well able commentators would agree with me that this passage in no way supports the election of individual salvation in the least.

You always desire your favorite proof text to be examined alone in a vacuum as an island to its self, while you give lip service to comparing Scripture with Scripture and completely ignore God instilled first truths of reason. Before Scriptures were able to be read, God was at work in everyman’s life, including the heathen which have not the law, granting the tools necessary to discern some truth via first truths of reason. If you believe you are going to establish the truth of any such passage without the help of that basis God given intuitive wisdom, you are on a path to error and that without exception as you have proved by your false conclusions to this passage.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: You don't understand what I asking!

HP: You simply don’t get it DW. This is a free list ( for the most part) and I will exercise my freedom to answer your posts anyway I so desire within the framework of the rules of this forum.
One could write a book on that passage but that is not the purpose of this forum and would most likely bore the listener anyway. I will direct my posts to the points I see pertinent and concise (as much as possible) as God directs and gives me wisdom. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: You simply don’t get it DW. This is a free list ( for the most part) and I will exercise my freedom to answer your posts anyway I so desire within the framework of the rules of this forum.
One could write a book on that passage but that is not the purpose of this forum and would most likely bore the listener anyway. I will direct my posts to the points I see pertinent and concise (as much as possible) as God directs and gives me wisdom. :thumbs:

You don't get it. I am not asking you to write a book or a commentary. You have already said my interpretation is wrong. All I am asking is for you to put it to the objective test provided by Paul in the context to see if Paul agrees with you. Do the anticipated objections given by Paul harmonize with your objections to why my position is wrong? Do the responses given by Paul to these antipated objections harmonize with my responses to the same objections? Here is your chance to PROVE my position is not what Paul is teaching. Here is your chance to PROVE your philosophy on human nature harmonizes with the Apostle Paul.

Here is your opportunity to prove that Augustine's position on human depravity is wrong and yours is right!

You will not submit either one of our views to this simple test because it would EXPOSE you as teaching falsehood!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Now, if you really want to prove my interpretation is not in agreement with Paul's interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 it is EASY and SIMPLE to prove it is not.

HP: That is precisely what I did. Maybe you did not read my post or cannot or will not apprehend it due to the fact it runs counter to the presuppositions of OSAS and deterministic election (combined with the philosophy of which the necessitated system you ascribe to imbibes) you are so very fond of. Very well. Believe as you so desire. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: That is precisely what I did. Maybe you did not read my post or cannot or will not apprehend it due to the fact it runs counter to the presuppositions of OSAS and deterministic election (combined with the philosophy of which the necessitated system you ascribe to imbibes) you are so very fond of. Very well. Believe as you so desire. :thumbs:

Where is this supposed post that disproves my interpretation of Romans 9:6-15 and how do you think you disproved it? Did you disprove it by this simple contextual test or by your philosophical opinions?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Here is your opportunity to prove that Augustine's position on human depravity is wrong and yours is right!

HP: The OP of this thread is what??? Maybe you need to check. :thumbs: My purpose of posting here is to refute your opinion on Romans 9 and election, not establish my views on human depravity. Why do you now seem to desire to change the topic to human depravity? Start a thread on it or post on the other thread that is already discussing that matter.


But.......If you insist on discussing it here, fire away. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Post #28 refutes your position DW.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I know how easy it is to simply overlook a response, so I will hightlight for you the conclusion which sums up the points concerning your error. Hope this helps.

In conclusion, DW is in error when he reads into this text the lack of clear conditions to salvation. He tries to define for all of Scripture the lack of conditions for salvation by the fact that in this passage certain benefits granted to men by God had none. That is an unwise, unscriptural deduction without merit and was not the purpose of God in this passage or any other.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your right, I did not see this post. However, it is fairly simple to prove your argument is false.

1. You fail to see that it is your interpretation of Romans 9 - that National election of Jews is what makes them the children of promise is exactly what Paul is repudiating.

Your interpretation was the argument of the common Jew. We are the children of Abraham, we are the chosen nation, and therefore we are "the children of promise" and we are "the children of God."

Paul's rebuttal begins by admitting that yes, the promises were made to Abraham and his children - the nation of Israel, (vv. 1-5) however, these promises are obtained on an INDIVIDUAL basis as the children of God are like unto Isaac who was the PROMISED child and not children merely by fleshly birth as were the other seven children of Abraham (Ishmael, and the six sons of Keturah). The real children of God are SUPERNATURALLY born like Isaac:

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.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Gal. 4:28 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.

So your interpretation is the very one that Paul is repudiating as it is the interpretation of the Jews.

This is why Paul brings Jacob into this argument as well. Being the children of God or child of promise is not determined by physical birth or "good" and "bad" works one may do in their life. It is determined by God's "purpose of election." On the other hand, the Jews beleived it was determined simply by being physically born into the line of Abraham and performance of good works over bad works that defined one as "children of promise."

Jacob proves this to be untrue. He was chosen by God before His birht and before doing any good or evil. It is apparent because he was more evil than Esau was from birth and yet God chose him over Esaw. Jacob tried to supplant Esau in the womb and come out first and after birth tried to supplant Jacob by deception, lying, bargaining with all the evil that was in him and yet God BEFORE birth chose Jacob.

Jacob and Esau are representative of two peoples - the chosen by God in spite of themselves and the unchosen by God. They represent the two original seeds - the "seed of the woman" - Chrihst and all in him and the "seed" of the Serpent. They represent he that is born after the Spirit and he that is born after the flesh. He represents the elect and Esau the non-elect. Jacob represents those that God's love is demonstratively bestowed upon for eternity and those whose God's wrath is demonstratively bestowed upon for eternity.

Now, obviously you don't agree with my interpretation BUT you cannot support yours from the context as your interpretation is the very interpretation Paul is refuting. Put your objections to my interpretation to the test. Paul anticipates the following objection to his exposition in verses 6-13. Is this the same objection you would have to my interpretation as well?

Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

Now, would your response to such an objection in defense of your position be the same response Paul gives in Romans 9:15-18 OR would this response be keeping with my position?

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Now, would the objection that Paul anticipates in verse 19 to what he says in the above verses (Rom. 9:14-18) be also your objection to what Paul says in verses 14-19 and therefore a valid objection by those who know and reject your position?

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Is this an objection you would make to Paul's words in verses 14-18 as well OR is this an objection that I would make to his position? Which is it?

Finally, would you respond like Paul in verses 20-24 to some one who made the objection in verse 18 in order to defend your interpretation of Romans 9:6-13 and 15-17? Or would this response be in keeping with my interpretation of these same passages? Which is it?




as well to my position or would

Paul anticipates another objection to what he says in Romans 9:15-


and Romans 9:14

HP: Here DW makes his big mistake with this passage. In his haste to somehow line this passage up with Augustinian/Calvinistic election, he jumps top unwarranted conclusions. DW highlights this portion as if this somehow indicates the text is advocating the election of individuals as opposed to the nations He first was speaking of. Reason in no wise makes any such leap of judgment. You simply cannot conclude as DW obviously concludes from his manner of using the text as opposed to interpreting the text. If the context of election is nations as I believe is indicated, the most one could make of the text is that God has welcomed into the family of God in the last days, both Jews and Gentiles, and that by His own volition, not having to anything with the moral character of any and regardless who the Jews believe should be the ones to inherit His blessings. The argument of God indicates that just as He was Sovereign in picking the Jewish nation to receive blessings not bestowed on any other, he was Sovereign to choose to graft in Gentiles as he so chooses to do. It does NOT indicate the means by which this is to be done, nor even the means by which the Jews became ‘spiritual’ Jews, ( certainly it does not indicate that the Jews by birth were or are grafted in God’s ‘spiritual’ kingdom by arbitrary selection as the unconditional election DW clearly indicates) but rather is simply justifying God as a Sovereign Creator to bestow certain blessings as He sees fit by His own design on even the Gentiles.

This is not a treatise on the lack of conditions for salvation, nor on the stated conditions of salvation. God appears to simply be saying, if I desire to rain upon the just and the unjust I will do so. If I desire to grant special favor to one nation of peoples as opposed to another nation of peoples including the Gentiles, I can do so for purposes known only to myself.

In conclusion, DW is in error when he reads into this text the lack of clear conditions to salvation. He tries to define for all of Scripture the lack of conditions for salvation by the fact that in this passage certain benefits granted to men by God had none. That is an unwise, unscriptural deduction without merit and was not the purpose of God in this passage or any other.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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.

DW: The central truths applied to Israel are not restricted to Israel but applicable to distinguish "the children of God" whether Jewish or Gentile.

HP: DW tries to take a passage of Scripture that does not address the manner in which individual salvation is gained, and falsely apply the truths of this passage. This passage establishes once for all that if God desires to show favoritism ( or what to some as favoritism) in some ways to certain groups of individuals, He is Sovereign and can do just that. If He decides to allow opportunity for the Gentiles, over all objections of the Jews or any other, to have the opportunity to partake of His Kingdom, He can do that as well, just as He has. This passage does NOT establish the conditions for salvation, nor remotely suggest that there are no conditions or that He simply and arbitrarily chooses who to save and who to damn. This passage simply is not dealing with the conditions of salvation or the lack thereof, but rather is general in its application to who has, and now will, receive opportunity into His Kingdom. In summary, God has chosen both groups of people, Jews and Gentiles, to have opportunity into His Kingdom. DW begs the question when he obviously concludes that this passage excludes all conditions of salvation and that it establishes his false notion of conditionless election in the case of individuals. That point, assumed without proof by DW, is not the topic nor context, nor is it mentioned, nor is it even alluded to by this passage. DW simply assumes without proof his presuppositions of election inconjunction with OSAS and reads into this passage support for conditionless salvation when such is not the case, stated or implied, by this passage of Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: 1. You fail to see that it is your interpretation of Romans 9 - that National election of Jews is what makes them the children of promise is exactly what Paul is repudiating.

HP: You fail to understand anything I have stated. I have never stated or implied any such thing. Show me where I either stated or implied any such thing.

DW: Your interpretation was the argument of the common Jew. We are the children of Abraham, we are the chosen nation, and therefore we are "the children of promise" and we are "the children of God."

HP: DW, help me out here. I do not desire to be unkind but you are far from the truth. That was not, is not and has never been my argument. That is either a complete misconception on your part or a paper duck put up by yourself which seem to you as an easy target to refute. At any rate, you completely misrepresent my stated sentiments completely. When you flat out misrepresent anothers views, you are fighting as one that beateth the wind.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In other words, you are unable to repudiate my exposition in the last post where I proved your interpretation is in error?

You did not address a single evidence I presented! Is this supposed to be a two-way dialogue?

I proved by the context that Paul is repudiating the very interpretation you give as that is exactly what the pious Jews believed. They believed that national election obtained individual guarantee for them to be the "children of promise" by natural birth coupled with good works.

However, this is exactly what Paul is denying. He is denying that national election equals individual guarantee to be a child of promise.

He repudiates this by expressly stating that not all Jews physically born are children of promise - thus national election does not obtain individual guantee to be "the children of God."

Individual SUPERNATURAL BIRTH as in the case of Isaac characterizes all the children of promise.

Individual ELECTION prior to physical birth not according to works but according to grace characterizes all children of promise.

ABSOLUTE PROOF is that Romans 9:15-24 deals with INDIVIDUALS not NATIONS.

ABSOLUTE PROOF is that Romans 9:24 applies the potters analogy to INDIVIDUALS not the NATION of Israel versus the NATION of Edom but INDIVIDUAL calling of both Jews and Gentiles as "the children of God."

You cannot possibly disprove this IF immediate context is the final authority for interpreting this passage.

HP: DW tries to take a passage of Scripture that does not address the manner in which individual salvation is gained, and falsely apply the truths of this passage. This passage establishes once for all that if God desires to show favoritism ( or what to some as favoritism) in some ways to certain groups of individuals, He is Sovereign and can do just that. If he decides to allow opportunity for the Gentiles, over all objections of the Jews or any other, to have the opportunity to partake of His Kingdom, He can do that as well, just as He has. This passage does NOT establish the conditions for salvation, nor remotely suggest that there are no conditions or that He simply and arbitrarily chooses who to save and who to damn. This passage simply is not dealing with the conditions of salvation or the lack thereof, but rather is general in its application to who has, and now will, receive opportunity into His Kingdom. In summary, God has chosen both groups of people, Jews and Gentiles, to have opportunity into His Kingdom. DW begs the question when he obviously concludes that this passage excludes all conditions of salvation and that it establishes his false notion of conditionless election in the case of individuals. That point, assumed without proof by DW, is not the topic nor context, nor is it mentioned, nor is it even alluded to by this passage. DW simply assumes without proof his presuppositions of election inconjunction with OSAS and reads into this passage support for conditionless salvation when such is not the case, stated or implied, by this passage of Scripture.