Romans Chapter 9

Mike, I'd be curious to know if you have any evidence that the word tasso has held any other meaning historically than that which is accepted now (generally 'to appoint')

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1111881814-9611.html

You hold RC accountable- and that's good. Now I'm holding you accountable

In Christ,

Dan

 

Hi Whetstone;
What are you going to hold me with and how you going to judge me. This is your buddies idea what's yours?
I'm so scared of you both, you Calvinist you.

Don't make me laugh so hard I'm an old man.
Mike

 

i have no idea what your last post meant. lol.

 

Youth does have its disadvantages doesn't it Mike?

 

You guys that make too much of the fact that the Bible says: "Jacob I have loved, Easu I have hated" (Rom. 9.13), fail to deal with Psalms 106.40, which states: "Therefore the wrath of the Lord was kindled
against His people, So that He abhorred His own inheritance" Here, is a very clear statement which shows that God "hates" His "own inheritance", which no doubt refers to His chosen people in the Old Testament! It shoudl be noted, that both in Hebrew and Greek, the words translated "hate" here in Romans, has the meaning "to love less", according to the lexicons. The fact that the Lord "loved Easu less" than He did Jacob, does not mean that He only wanted Jacob to be saved!

 

Was Esau not also known as the hunter, aggressor, conquerer, domineering one, while Jacob was the "gentle spirit", the meek one, the humble one, etc.

God was telling us that he does not want the strong to be dominant over the weak, so he made the stronger subservient to the weaker.

Do we not find in a true democracy that the strengh of a nation, the military, is controlled by those who are unarmed? Isn't that a dominant reason America has been made stronger?

 

God doesn't say that at all in the text! Would you read it for a change and let it speak for itself?

in order that God's purpose of election might continue

Why did things things happen? Because God wanted the stronger to serve the weaker? How wrong is that? You guys just have to make things up don't you? A school kid if you show him this verse will tell you.... "In order that God's PURPOSE OF ELECTION might continue... that's why...

Hold me accountable? .... funny hypocrite...

Try every Bible since it has been written... how bout Luther's German Bible, how about the Latin Vulgate, how about Wycliffe's bible... all of them3 different languages ALL translate it ORDAINED.

Or how bout secular Greek? Plato's republic and Iliad both have the same word and in ALL of it's manuscripts translate it "ordained" ... NOW

Wheres your proof liar !! WHich council liar!!
Who condemned Calvinism liar !! I've given my proof that you asked for, where's mine that I've been asking for weeks !!!

 

Doesn't God's word say that the meek shall inherit the earth? Wouldn't it be in accordance with God's will that the lesser be dominant over the greater in order for the meek to inherit the earth? Get with the program rc!

The meek shall inherit the earth is quite consistant with Jacob and Esau, and fits well with God's purpose of election. Look at tiny Israel compared to giant Egypt. Look at tiny Israel compared to giants arabia, syria, iraq, iran, etc. How has Israel ever survived if it is not God's purpose of election being carried out. Oh highly educated one, why can't you see the truth?

 

Jacob and Israel were MEEK? It doesn't say that in the text .. we are talking about Roman 9 Wes and what IT says... You can't use other texts and INTERJECT them into a text that has NOTHING TO DO with it !!

First of all you contradict the immediate scripture that we are discussing.

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either GOOD or BAD ....not because of WORKS but because of HIS CALL -

YOU contradict the very verse with your horrible thesis !

Meekness on the part of Jacob? PLEASE ! The WHOLE POINT Paul was getting at was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying ! Paul was saying Jacob wasn't good or it wasn't because what he did (kind of shoots humility in the foot) ... Here's the kicker Wes ..

BUT BECAUSE OF HIS CALL !!!

That's why I told you to READ THE TEXT ! Paul answers the question DIRECTLY!

THAT'S what this whole passage is ALL about !
IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF:
humility, strength, weakness, UNDERSTANDING, ignorance, FAITH, no faith...

IT IS BECAUSE OF HIM WHO CALLS !!

THE SUBJECT is GOD and what HE does not man and what he does !!! Isn't this simple?

Even your analogy refutes yourself.

God CHOSE Israel BECAUSE they where small NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR SMALLNESS but because the implications BEHIND the choice ! If God chose a BIG nation and they flourished, man could say it was because of their greatness. By God choosing a small nation, it takes away the excuse of man pointing to THEMSELVES of why they are great and not because of God !! Israel because of their smallness took "man" out of the equation. That way GOD GETS THE GLORY! Everything God does is for HIS glory.

That's Paul's point in Rom 9 also. It is because of HIM not man.... In EVERYTHING !!
HIS creation
HIS redemption
HIS Mercy
HIS grace
HIS holiness
HIS sovereignty
HIS GLORY !!!!

why do you want to take glory away from Him and HIS purpose?

 

Let's see what Romans 9 is really saying. Keep in mind that beginning in Romans 5:12, through the end of Chapter 7, Paul is discussing deliverance from sin and death and law. then in Chapter 8 Paul's discussing the Christian's Spiritual life, then in Chapter 9 through the end of 11, Paul is telling us the Place of Israel, in the new Covenant.

In Context Paul is not teaching Election.

 

instruments of his retribution and designed to be destroyed; so that he may make known the glorious riches ready for the people who are the instruments of his faithful love and were long ago prepared for that glory. We are that people, called by him not only out of the Jews but out of the gentiles too.

I'll use your horrible translation, but it still works... Notice in your little diatribe that you didn't BOLD "those designed for destruction"? Paul was not just talking about "faith and works" but WHO and How and WHY !! It is because it is not if you are a Jew or gentile (Paul's whole point) but of HIM WHO CALLS!!

Why would Paul anticipate these following questions? (Funny, they are ARMINIANIST)

What should we say, then? That God is unjust?

How then can he ever blame anyone, since no one can oppose his will?"

But you, who do you think you, a human being, are, to answer back to God?

Something that was made, can it say to its maker: why did you make me this shape?

These are ONLY questions that would be brought up by teaching ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION. If Paul never would of brought up election and predestination, these questions WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE ASKED!!!!

But they were, weren't they?

The Jews thought they were God's chosen because they were given the promises and the Law. Romans 1 - 8 Paul lays down the truth that is is by faith. This is why when a Jew reads this (Paul knowing it would be read by Jews) they would think God's promise to them failed... THIS is the whole point of chpt 9!!! It's not the sovereignty of God OR faith vs works, but it is God's promises NOT FAILING ! Everybody over looks the first phrase of verse six... you didn't put that in bold I see...But a Jew will zero in on this immediately and recognize this as the THEME of the chapter (which it is) But it is not as though the word of God has failed...

The whole chapter is SUPPORTED by the sovereignty of God on which the word expounds upon the WHY the word of God has not failed.

In God's Paul's point is... It is by God's sovereignty on who he elects that is "the promise" it is not on "nationality" it is not on man's choosing FAITH (it is not of him that willeth) is not on man's working THE LAW ( nor of him that runneth) but ON HIS MERCY (CALLING) !

This is why He has to anticipate those questions AND He answers them.... Which he does by say standing on God's sovereign choice.

 

I have read Romans 9-11 as a Calvinist (in the past) and I have read it as a non-Calvinist. In my mind, the non-Calvinist approach (Romans 9-11 has nothing to do with individual salvation, but God's election of nations and rulers to a purpose. It is not about Jacob and Esau's individual salvation, but the election of the nation of Israel to be the instrument of the redemtive message, not Edom.) makes more sense.

That's not to say that Calvinist interpretation has absolutely no merit. I just think they have to do more cramming and jamming to get Romans 9 into their interpretive box. In fact, it was through the reading of some good non-Calvinistic interpretations of Romans that I came to see the flaws of Calvinism. Each man must be convinced in his own mind.

Read it either way, it's not a salvific issue. Thank God our salvation is not based on our correct interpretation of every passage of scripture.

 

John B
Have you read "The Justification of God"?.
To say this has nothing to do with the individual is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

I have. If I had to choose the author who most elegantly and convincingly tries to squeeze in the Calvinistic intepretation, it would be Piper.

Nonetheless, I am not completely convinced.

When I read Romans synthetically, from beginning to end, it is clear that Paul is making a point to a group of first century Jews, that salvation comes not from the Law or works or even being a descendent of Abraham, but through faith.

I find it hard to concieve that anyone in the congregation when the letter was first read, would have come up with the Calvinist interpretation. Perhaps this is why this interpretation did not take root until the 4th century with Augustine.

 

Then why did Paul Anticipate the questions? Who would by asking them and how are they in conjuction with the reasoning of faith and works?
And why does he use the singular grammer?

As for this interpretation not being until the 4th century, this begs the question doesn't it? How do you know the opposite interpretation was being taught AT ALL... Also, if Augustine wasn't teaching something that was already being taught, on what grounds did they have for condemning Pelagius? If anything, if Augustines view wasn't what was taught from the beginning, it would of universaly been condemned as heretical. But we find ALL the councils condemning Pelagius.... seems like I should be asking you, what makes you think (based on church history) that free-will was EVER taught? Especially pre Augustine?

It would be safe to say the earliest view that was accepted by the church proven by historal document would be considered what was held BEFORE what was documented. Yet the earliest views of free-will and non total depravity where never accepted from the earliest documents of history... seems to me your on sand my friend.

 

RC,

I appreciate your conviction. As Paul said, each man must be convinced in his own mind.

I look at systematic theology as a trial, both sides must present a case and I must determine who has made the best case. Doesn't mean I can be absolutely certain I am right all the time. But always be sure you have heard both sides completely and clearly. I became a non-Calvinist when I finally took time to hear the "other side." What have you read from the opposition? Shank's "Elect in the Son" or Lightner's "The Death Christ Died" or Marston's "God's Strategy in Human History" or Olson's "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism." If you have, wonderful. If you haven't, look them up.

These guys gave me reasonable doubt. And if don't think a systematic theology is right beyond a shadow of a doubt, I am not going to espouse it. (And most serious 5 point Calvinists agree that you cannot lose any one point without falling off the boat.) That's why I am not an Arminian either. I don't agree with that 100%. But I do agree 100% with what I believe the Bible says.
Fortunately this is all just good-natured sparring since Christ is our Rock and God will not be checking our theological labels.


As for the Fathers, you seem to think they were silent on the issue. They were not. They taught free will and man's ability to choose salvation quite clearly. Here's a website which collates some good material on the Fathers. Also a good summation of a non-Calvinist view of Romans 9.

[http://www.jarom.net/contents-pred.htm]

 

JohnB,
Thanks for your concise and clearly stated position. It is refreshing.

 

Jusin Martyr based his on Greek philosophy, as I have stated before. Also the views of church fathers are VERY rare on this issue. They were fighting different battles back then i.e. baptism issues...

Many of them are taken out of context. Much of the writings are just simple imperatives. Man has the freedom to Choose Christ. THIS IS NOT a statement against total depravity. This shows the misunderstanding of total depravity. Die hard Calvinist will say man has a free will to choose what ever he wants... to choose christ or not... this isn't the issue. And most of the Church fathers didn't make remarks separating the two issues.

Justin Martyrs ideas on choice didn't come from the Bible either...
And so, too, Plato, when he says, "The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless..... Great Justin... this shows ACTUALLY where "free will" thought came from in the early church.

P.S. I haven't read Shank but I have the others... I truly believe they misapply and misrepresent scripture. This is of course just my opinion. But I can see how you respect their work.

 

John B,

I'm on the flip side. I was an assisting Pastor at an open minded "in the middle of the road" non denominational church called Calvary Chapel.
Till I did an in depth study on the issue also... funny...

 

I understand Calvinistic "free will" and the difference between total depravity and total inability. As Sproul says, man is free, but only to sin because of the bondage of the will, yada yada yada.

But a synthetic reading of the Word, not proof texting, clearly indicates that God calls on men, from Genesis to the book of maps, to choose righteousness by a volitonal act of free will...believe, repent, choose this day, obey, etc. Even Cornelius rendered righteous acts and prayers to God before he was saved. To teach inability is to teach that all imperitives to obey are a sham. Faith precedes regeneration. Why did Christ so often say "Your faith has saved you" or "healed you" or why "I have not found such great faith.." or "will I find faith?"

As for your other points, they could be reflected in a mirror. If Martyr relied on Greek philosophy, then Augustine is even more guilty.

Regarding you comment on the books I cited, I would apply the same criticism to Piper, Sproul et al: "I truly believe they misapply and misrepresent scripture. This is of course just my opinion."

Ah, we could go on forever... (I am convinced that the Calvinism debate is the theological equivelant of crack cocaine.) As long as you have done a thorough study and are convinced in your own mind, what more could I expect?