Romans 9

[DHK]

Once men sin, God is under no obligation to save any.

God is the creator. He is under no obligation to save anyone. He is perfectly in his right to send the entire human race to hell. He created us. We are his creation. He can do as he will. It is only of his grace and mercy that he chose to save some, and that only because of the redemptive grace of His Son.

The statement that you spoke, seems to be a direct quote from Finney. That is what he would have said.
What about the time period that elapses before a person sins? Will that person goes to heaven? What if it is possible for a child to not sin for ten years, fifteen years? twenty years? Finney thought it would be theoretically possible to build a "Christian society" based on the doctrine of "sinless perfection" which a denial of the sin nature of man leads to.

But the teaching of Psalm 58:3 negates all that. So does the teaching of Jeremiah 13:23, which you have never responded to. Man is a sinner by nature, from his birth onward, and cannot help but sin. He is guilty from the day he is born. He is born with a sin nature. God is under no obligation to wait until he sins. Where in the Bible does it teach that?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter, you say you did not deny that nations were being discussed here, but then you seem to be going into the whole "objection" argument.
But it would stand that if nations are being discussed, then it is the concept of nation the objections would be against. And this makes perfect sense when you realize how much the Jews trusted in their national heritage as making them the elect. That was everything to them! It is why Christ was ultimately rejected by them. He didn't advance their national "salvation" program.
In fact, that's what the whole contrast of "flesh vs spirit" is about (flesh is more than sertain sins as we often treat it. It's is that their physical lineage made them thr true people of God).

The original reader would understand this, and would have no reason to suddenly be thinking about some class of people called "non-elect individuals".
The way this affects the individual is that each person must be apart of spiritual Israel rather than physical ("fleshy") Israel, to be apart of the elect.

GE:
I think you have made a valid statement; especially in your last sentence.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:
I think you have made a valid statement; especially in your last sentence.

GE he has not made a valid statement but missed the whole point of Romans 9. Paul's whole point is first to acknowledge that Israel is the elect nation above all other nations (vv. 1-5) but that the promise of Abraham in regard to being a child of God does not come through physical birth whether you were born into the elect nation or born outside the elect nation. His whole section from verses 6-24 is to prove that the true promised children come by SUPERNATURAL BIRTH and INDIVIDUAL ELECTION to salvation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE he has not made a valid statement but missed the whole point of Romans 9. Paul's whole point is first to acknowledge that Israel is the elect nation above all other nations (vv. 1-5) but that the promise of Abraham in regard to being a child of God does not come through physical birth whether you were born into the elect nation or born outside the elect nation. His whole section from verses 6-24 is to prove that the true promised children come by SUPERNATURAL BIRTH and INDIVIDUAL ELECTION to salvation.

GE:
To me it looks inexplicable how we could differ, dear Dr Walter; you really have me puzzled-- but about something I could not care less about.

 

[Eric B]

GE he has not made a valid statement but missed the whole point of Romans 9. Paul's whole point is first to acknowledge that Israel is the elect nation above all other nations (vv. 1-5) but that the promise of Abraham in regard to being a child of God does not come through physical birth whether you were born into the elect nation or born outside the elect nation. His whole section from verses 6-24 is to prove that the true promised children come by SUPERNATURAL BIRTH and INDIVIDUAL ELECTION to salvation.

I have not missed the point of the chapter, it is a presumption of unconditional individual election that has added to it.
A person can start out in the "children of the flesh" group represented by Esau and then become a part of the "children of promise" represented by Isaac. So even if unconditional election is true; that section cannot be used to prove it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have not missed the point of the chapter, it is a presumption of unconditional individual election that has added to it.
A person can start out in the "children of the flesh" group represented by Esau and then become a part of the "children of promise" represented by Isaac. So even if unconditional election is true; that section cannot be used to prove it.

Only if God's foreknowledge is in error! Could God be wrong about whom He forknew, whom He elected before the world began? A god who is erroneous? Is that the god you serve?

Since election occurred before the world began there is no jumping back and forth as Romans 9:11 says the choice of Jacob by God was "according to the purpose of election"!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Note clearly how DW continues to beg the question as to the manner in which God foreknows, and assumes without proof that it must be a matter of necessity because God foreknows it. DW could not be further from the truth on this matter. He limits and Infinite God to the foreknowledge of mere finite man, foreknowing only matters of necessity. So much for God's ways being higher than our ways. One does no service to an Almighty Infinite God by limiting His attributes and abilities to that of mere finite men.

It is NOT about whether or not God could be wrong as DW tries to coin the argument, but rather the question should be, does His foreknowledge necessitate the outcome? I say, with reason and Scripture, absolutely not if moral agents are praised or blamed for the outcome.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Note clearly how DW continues to beg the question as to the manner in which God foreknows

Don't beg....ask God for confirmation of what is true. Do you know what that means?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: Don't beg....ask God for confirmation of what is true. Do you know what that means?

HP: You might consider reflecting on what it means to beg the question, or assume something without proof that you should be establishing with facts as opposed to merely espousing an unproven assumption. If we are going use wisdom when establishing what we believe is truth, we need to understand this point clearly and recognize when others are merely begging the question as opposed to setting forth clear evidence to support their conclusions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First, if we speak of foreknowledge as a matter of mere prescience, then that does not necessitate anything but the fact that God knows the future in advance and that God's prescience is not wrong. Hence, by definition of prescience nothing is determined by God in the future. The only thing determined is God's knowlege of the future to be accurate and thus what God foreknows will come to pass as God says.

Second, if we speak of foreknowledge as divine intimacy and full comprehension of his eternal purpose or divine decrees that he has predetermined to carry out as in Romans 8:28-31 then we are speaking of all those things that God uses His power to make sure they occur as planned. That is precisely why Paul can say "we know" with certainty concerning all things that God works "according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28) as though it were past tense and already completed (Romans 8:29-30) in so much that the Apostles concludes by asking "What can we say to these things? If God be for us who can be against us?"

No one in their right mind who can read and understand English can deny that Romans 8:28-31 deals explicitly with the salvation of His elect as that is exactly what they are called in Romans 8:32.

Here is the real problem. You simply don't like what the Word of God teaches because it does not fit your humanistic philosophy of justness. This is why you dropped the discussion of Romans 9 because you could not honestly deal with that chapter. You had to distort and pervert it to make it fit your philosophy. You refused to take the simple test whether your position fits the objector or Paul's view in chapter nine. EVERY ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE OBJECTOR to Paul.

Note clearly how DW continues to beg the question as to the manner in which God foreknows, and assumes without proof that it must be a matter of necessity because God foreknows it. DW could not be further from the truth on this matter. He limits and Infinite God to the foreknowledge of mere finite man, foreknowing only matters of necessity. So much for God's ways being higher than our ways. One does no service to an Almighty Infinite God by limiting His attributes and abilities to that of mere finite men.

It is NOT about whether or not God could be wrong as DW tries to coin the argument, but rather the question should be, does His foreknowledge necessitate the outcome? I say, with reason and Scripture, absolutely not if moral agents are praised or blamed for the outcome.

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: You might consider reflecting on what it means to beg the question, or assume something without proof that you should be establishing with facts as opposed to merely espousing an unproven assumption. If we are going use wisdom when establishing what we believe is truth, we need to understand this point clearly and recognize when others are merely begging the question as opposed to setting forth clear evidence to support their conclusions.

So you won't seek God for conformation because???

 

[Eric B]

Only if God's foreknowledge is in error! Could God be wrong about whom He forknew, whom He elected before the world began? A god who is erroneous? Is that the god you serve?

Since election occurred before the world began there is no jumping back and forth as Romans 9:11 says the choice of Jacob by God was "according to the purpose of election"!

Here is the real problem. You simply don't like what the Word of God teaches because it does not fit your humanistic philosophy of justness. This is why you dropped the discussion of Romans 9 because you could not honestly deal with that chapter. You had to distort and pervert it to make it fit your philosophy. You refused to take the simple test whether your position fits the objector or Paul's view in chapter nine. EVERY ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE OBJECTOR to Paul.

I myself was not even arguing on foreknowledge. I didn't even mention it. My point was (even if unconditional election were true, as I allowed) that you cannot use that "objection" passage as proof of UE and its flipside, reprobation (what the "objection" is always assumed to be against). The opposition was to the refuting of national election. And you seemed to even acknowledge my point there, but now you're again implying that the objection is over the lack of "justness" of individual election/reprobation as opposed to foreknowledge.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I myself was not even arguing on foreknowledge. I didn't even mention it. My point was (even if unconditional election were true, as I allowed) that you cannot use that "objection" passage as proof of UE and its flipside, reprobation (what the "objection" is always assumed to be against). The opposition was to the refuting of national election. And you seemed to even acknowledge my point there, but now you're again implying that the objection is over the lack of "justness" of individual election/reprobation as opposed to foreknowledge.

He is not refuting national election but affirms it (vv. 1-5). What he is refuting is that national election means every physical birthed son of Abraham is a child of God.

What you fail to consider is HOW he refutes that every physical birth son of Abraham is a child of God. He refutes it by using the birth of Isaac and the births of Jacob and Esau to characterize every true promise child of Abraham.

1. Every true promised child like Isaac is SUPERNATURALLY born

2. Every true promised child like Jacob is born "according to the purpose of election" rather than according to any foreseen good or bad works he did.

Hence, he is teaching that only Jews who are BORN OF GOD and CHOSEN of God are true children of God and promised to Abraham.

 

[Eric B]

OK, I meant he was refuting physical "national" election and teaching the elect nation was spiritual.

Isaac/Jacob and Esau represented the different nations. Originally, the physical nations, and now, they have become types of the spiritual nations. So nobody was objecting to God "choosing Issac over Esau" for salvation as individuals. Nobody was thinking "poor Esau, and all other 'non-elect' after him. They had no chance to escape Hell". That's a modern dispute that we project onto the passage. It's just not in the context.
The Jews of course relished the choice of Issac, as it favored them (so they thought). What they opposed was the transfer from physical to spiritual, and that God would hypothetically "find fault" with them by "choosing" them without justifying them based on the physical identity.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul admits to national election (vv. 1-5) but denies INDIVIDUAL spiritual election is through Jewish birth. So it is a contrast of physical national election versus individual spiritual election. Salvation is not a CORPORATE action but an individual action by God.

How does one become the "children of promise" or the "children of God" is what Paul answers in Romans 9:6-24. He admits that Israel is the elect nation (vv. 1-5) but He denies any INDIVIDUAL Jew is "the children of Promise" or the "children of God through national election and physical birth as such are only "the children of the flesh" but not the "children of God."

The true promised children or children of God are INDIVIDUALLY supernaturally born as was Isaac and INDIVIDUALLY chosen as was Jacob.

There is no contrast between physical and spiritual nations but between INDIVIDUALS who are either "the children of the flesh" and "children of God."


It is the idea of salvation by NATIONAL election and PHYSICAL birth in contrast to INDIVIDUAL election and SUPERNATURAL birth. He answers the question what is the difference between "children of the flesh" and "children of God" and how does one become a child of promise or child of God! It is not a product of NATIONAL election and NATURALISM but it is a product of INDIVIDUAL election and SUPERNATURALISM.

OK, I meant he was refuting physical "national" election and teaching the elect nation was spiritual.

Isaac/Jacob and Esau represented the different nations. Originally, the physical nations, and now, they have become types of the spiritual nations. So nobody was objecting to God "choosing Issac over Esau" for salvation as individuals. Nobody was thinking "poor Esau, and all other 'non-elect' after him. They had no chance to escape Hell". That's a modern dispute that we project onto the passage. It's just not in the context.
The Jews of course relished the choice of Issac, as it favored them (so they thought). What they opposed was the transfer from physical to spiritual, and that God would hypothetically "find fault" with them by "choosing" them without justifying them based on the physical identity.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: 1. Every true promised child like Isaac is SUPERNATURALLY born

HP: Here DW begs the question as to ‘how they are born supernaturally,’ and ‘by what means God uses to birth them into the Kingdom.’ DW blindly and falsely supposes it is by the same means God chose natural Israel to receive certain privileges and glory, which had no stated conditions. No where does this passage or any other indicate that spiritual Israel is chosen by God in the same fashion as were the physical children of Israel.

Furthermore, there is not even the slightest indication in this passage that God did not make the choice of physical Israel He did apart from some consideration of the character of Jacob being as such as one that God knew would follow Him. DW likes to make mention of these words as proof that God just 'arbitrarily selected' him without any regard to the manner in which he would direct his life or the choices to follow God he would eventually make by the folling verse: “Ro 9:11 (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”

The question is does this verse indicate unconditional election of even Israel himself? Absolutely not. It does indicate that before he was born, or prior to ever making one solitary moral choice that God predestined a plan of life for him and his descendants. It does show absolute proof of God’s omniscience of the future but in no wise explains to us all that went into God making the choices He did to use Israel in this fashion. Only a Calvinist or one leaning hard towards Calvinism would try to say that God takes no consideration of the future choices one will freely make when electing those that He chooses. DW is standing this passage on its head to support the Calvinistic notions of determinism that simply are not supported by this text or any other and that flies in the face of any semblance of reason or justice on the part of God making His choices of the elect. All that can be reasonably assumed is that because it might appear to us from our finite abilities of foreknowledge that God may appear to us as unjust or unfair, He is not unfair or unjust. The problem lies with our finite understanding of the Infinite abilities of God in the matter of foreknowledge. It might 'appear' to us as being unjust, but if we had the Infinite ability to know matters of perfect choice as God obviously does, we could clearly see that He is not unjust in the least. It is just that His ways are indeed higher than our ways.

DW tries in vain to object that it was solely for the cause of God’s election without consideration of the men that would be formed or the freewill choices they would eventually make, but that cannot be established by this text or any other. Such a view still begs the unsolved question as to ‘how’ God determines who will and who will not be of the elect. We certainly know, according to this passage, it is determined prior to our choices, but what it does not say, indicate or imply is that it is accomplished 'without consideration of those choices' God foreknows we will make.

One simple truth blows the arguments the deterministic theologian out of the water and that without fail. If in fact God’s foreknowledge can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those that of necessity must come to pass, the simple matter of God making a determination of who the elect will be before they do right or wrong is merely an indication of His Infinite foreknowledge of those that will voluntarily and without force or coercion fulfill the conditions He has foreordained for those to comply with in order to be foreknown as one of the elect.

Of a truth DW limits the foreknowledge of God to matters of necessity which is to limit the Infinite God to abilities possessed by mere finite man. What ever happened to the God Calvinists and those leaning hard towards Calvinism so often use when convenient???? Where is the well known statement, ‘God’s ways are higher than our ways’ being indicated by the position of DW??? Why does DW bring God down to a finite realm of mans abilities (only able to foreknow matters of necessity as opposed to being able to foreknow matters of perfect choice as well) when Scripture mentions the word 'election' or speaks of foreknowledge??? Some Infinite God he in reality depicts.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Without the assistance of Isaac! Without the assistance of Abraham or Sarah unlike the birth of Ishmael! Without HUMAN ASSISTANCE. Sarah's womb was "dead" and so only a miracle by God solely by the power of God birthed Isaac:

Rom. 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Jn. 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Please find where Isaac assisted God in His birth? Please find where Abraham or Sarah assisted God in the birth of Isaac? He was supernaturally born solely by the promise and power of God apart from all human assistance.

Likewise, Jacob was chose by God "according to the purpose of election" without regard to anything good or bad he would do in his life - thus completely in disregard to future works good or bad but totally according to grace:

2 Tim. 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Rom. 9:11 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


You simply repudiate the very words of Paul and claim the very opposite to what Paul denies in plain explicit langauge.

Where does it say that God predestinated a "PLAN FOR HIS LIFE"?? It says "JACOB" was chosen not a PLAN was chosen. You simply rewrite the Scriptures to suit your heresies.

God's foreknowledge is not based upon forseen good and bad decisions of men but "according to God's Purpose" (Rom. 8:28 precedes Romans 8:29 and provides the basis for foreknowledge). The decisions of men in regard to God are already known to be free rejection and resistance to God by all mankind without exception (Psa. 14:2-3 with Romans 3:10-12 so that "all the world" is condemned already based wholly upon free will). It is God's free elective choice that any human being is saved as "free will" is what damned men and continues to damn them because man's will is not "free" from their own inward coersion of heart and mind - which is totally depraved and at enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God "and neither indeed CAN be" - Rom. 8:7

HP: Here DW begs the question as to ‘how they are born supernaturally,’ and ‘by what means God uses to birth them into the Kingdom.’ DW blindly and falsely supposes it is by the same means God chose natural Israel to receive certain privileges and glory, which had no stated conditions. No where does this passage or any other indicate that spiritual Israel is chosen by God in the same fashion as were the physical children of Israel.

Furthermore, there is not even the slightest indication in this passage that God did not make the choice of physical Israel He did apart from some consideration of the character of Jacob being as such as one that God knew would follow Him. DW likes to make mention of these words as proof that God just 'arbitrarily selected' him without any regard to the manner in which he would direct his life or the choices to follow God he would eventually make by the folling verse: “Ro 9:11 (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”

The question is does this verse indicate unconditional election of even Israel himself? Absolutely not. It does indicate that before he was born, or prior to ever making one solitary moral choice that God predestined a plan of life for him and his descendants. It does show absolute proof of God’s omniscience of the future but in no wise explains to us all that went into God making the choices He did to use Israel in this fashion. Only a Calvinist or one leaning hard towards Calvinism would try to say that God takes no consideration of the future choices one will freely make when electing those that He chooses. DW is standing this passage on its head to support the Calvinistic notions of determinism that simply are not supported by this text or any other and that flies in the face of any semblance of reason or justice on the part of God making His choices of the elect. All that can be reasonably assumed is that because it might appear to us from our finite abilities of foreknowledge that God may appear to us as unjust or unfair, He is not unfair or unjust. The problem lies with our finite understanding of the Infinite abilities of God in the matter of foreknowledge. It might 'appear' to us as being unjust, but if we had the Infinite ability to know matters of perfect choice as God obviously does, we could clearly see that He is not unjust in the least. It is just that His ways are indeed higher than our ways.

DW tries in vain to object that it was solely for the cause of God’s election without consideration of the men that would be formed or the freewill choices they would eventually make, but that cannot be established by this text or any other. Such a view still begs the unsolved question as to ‘how’ God determines who will and who will not be of the elect. We certainly know, according to this passage, it is determined prior to our choices, but what it does not say, indicate or imply is that it is accomplished 'without consideration of those choices' God foreknows we will make.

One simple truth blows the arguments the deterministic theologian out of the water and that without fail. If in fact God’s foreknowledge can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those that of necessity must come to pass, the simple matter of God making a determination of who the elect will be before they do right or wrong is merely an indication of His Infinite foreknowledge of those that will voluntarily and without force or coercion fulfill the conditions He has foreordained for those to comply with in order to be foreknown as one of the elect.

Of a truth DW limits the foreknowledge of God to matters of necessity which is to limit the Infinite God to abilities possessed by mere finite man. What ever happened to the God Calvinists and those leaning hard towards Calvinism so often use when convenient???? Where is the well known statement, ‘God’s ways are higher than our ways’ being indicated by the position of DW??? Why does DW bring God down to a finite realm of mans abilities (only able to foreknow matters of necessity as opposed to being able to foreknow matters of perfect choice as well) when Scripture mentions the word 'election' or speaks of foreknowledge??? Some Infinite God he in reality depicts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: 2. Every true promised child like Jacob is born "according to the purpose of election" rather than according to any foreseen good or bad works he did.

HP: As I have shown in the previous post, that is a flat out misrepresentation of the Scriptures or reason. God foreknowing something before one in reality does anything good or evil by no means is an indication that election is determined apart from consideration of everything foreknown involving the choices of man. That is a false and unsupported notion DW consistently errors concerning. Again, the simple truth that God can and does foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as things of necessity completely destroys the notion DW is trying to make.

The ‘rather than’ DW speaks of is not a part nor indication of the text. DW reads in this notion of foreknowledge opposing freedom of the will for it is not indicated by reason or this passage in Romans. There is no pitting of doing good or bad against the election as DW tries to do. Scripture only indicates God made His Just election antecedent to the decisions actually being made by man. What's new with that? God is Omniscient or not??? God being Omniscient in no wise makes everything that will occur the results of deterministic fatalism as DW appears to be implying.

Scripture is simply indicating that there is no injustice with God due to our finite abilities of understanding God’s election from our limited abilities of foreknowledge, i.e. the limited ability of only foreknowing matters of necessity. When one considers the notion that God can and does foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those things of necessity, such a deterministic manner ( as observed in Calvinism and those leaning hard towards Calvinism without fail inject into this and other passages as well) of interpreting this texts falls flat.

In summary, because God elects something to come to pass it does not necessarily indicate that He is not electing in accordance to His Omniscient understanding of the voluntary and free will choices of man, and those choices of man being an intrinsic part of such election.

 

[billwald]

>So you won't seek God for conformation because???

Because he gives conflicting answers and smarter (and more spiritual) people than I am can't sort them out.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: So you won't seek God for conformation because???

HP: First, if it is truth God IS the source of it. Some truths are so self evident, that to question them, or seek evidence to try and ‘prove them’, is simply absurd. Such is the case concerning the following first truth of reason. If one is going to be praised or blamed for their actions one must have a contrary choice as a clear possibility.

If man is to be held morally accountable, man must be able to do something other than what he does under the same set of circumstances apart from consideration of mere punishment or rewards.