The truth of Romans 9

Ben.

Exodus 4:21And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `In thy going to turn back to Egypt, see -- all the wonders which I have put in thy hand -- that thou hast done them before Pharaoh, and I -- I strengthen his heart, and he doth not send the people away;
Young's Literal Translation.
There is no 'so that' in Young's either but it reads the same.

It stopped you well enough.

Exodus 4:21And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `In thy going to turn back to Egypt, see -- all the wonders which I have put in thy hand -- that thou hast done them before Pharaoh, and I -- I strengthen his heart, and he doth not send the people away;
YLT.
What did God do and what was the reason for God so doing?
Your failure to answer means that you are denying scripture. It can mean no other thing, why hold out against the word of God it is bad for your health?

johnp.

 

Hello Ben.

Are you still dreaming things? So now johnp... Where's your answer?

Exodus 4:21: And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. RSV.

What did God do to Pharaoh and what did Pharaoh do as a result?
You can bring Exodus 9, 10, 11 and 12 in if you want but the question remains. What did God do to Pharaoh and what did Pharaoh do as a result according to Exodus 4:21?
Since you say it is no problem to you and no use to me I would think that you would jump at the chance to put me in my place. Why don't you answer my question? Because you can't bring yourself to submit to scripture because the Lord has not willed in your will to cause you to submit to Him. On the contrary, you are as Pharaoh. ...but I will harden his heart, so that he will not believe in the scripture.

So now Benny boy, where is the answer to my question?

johnp.

 

Hello Ben.

Romans nine is about God's Sovereignty. It is only concerned with Calvinism and no other doctrine because Calvinism is the only doctrine that deals with God as Sovereign and themselves as nothing.
That's another thing you did not know about nothing. That it is you and me.

Exodus 4:21 Then the LORD reminded him, "When you arrive back in Egypt, go to Pharaoh and perform the miracles I have empowered you to do. But I will make him stubborn so he will not let the people go. NLT.

No 'so that' there either.

johnp.

 

Ben.

1. Do you still admit that God needed to hardened the heart of a "'Totally Depraved' reprobate" dead in sin and in bondage to the will of the flesh so that this man would not obey Him?
God needs nothing except to accomplish His desires.
With that in mind and to let you know this, that I wish to speak colloquially as much as the next man, and you being versed in Christianity should not waste time picking at nothing God needed to harden Pharaoh's heart not for the reason you say but for his own reason.
Reason alone is sufficient. Self-preservation is #1 matey. Pharaoh did not need convincing of God's power once it was demonstrated, once or twice, three or four. Pharaoh acted in a way that is not consistant with the fallen nature. It's desire is for it's desires not God's. God needed to stop him from looking after #1.
2. Do you confirm your own previous admission that an unregenerate man can use his common sense to obey the command of God?
See above. But I will do another post on this explaining how I see life, the universe and everything in a minute. Colloquially.
3. Does Scripture say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart or not johnp? Why do you avoid the question?
Yes it does. I did not avoid the question I said I would not answer it. You must stop this behaviour.
4. Are you an advocate of double predestination?
Yes.

johnp.

 

Note, the following is a two part posting:

Part One

And on what basis is this mercy offered? The words for mercy and compassion here are VERBS not NOUNS. You've missed that. This sentence should read, when God

sent Jesus, He showed His mercy to them not because of anything did under the Law or anything they did not do, apart from the Law. This sentence fails to account for the

statement that God elected Isaac over Esau apart from anything good OR EVIL either child had done.

1. God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
2. Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

The same way that you reconcile God and Satan inciting David to take a census and calling it a sin for David to do so. God used Satan to incite David in order to bring

judgment upon him. Is this really an issue? Did God predestine everything involved in the crucifixion or not? God predestined all the actions and man freely complied. Acts

says exactly that.

Loaded question...There is a difference in double predestination and equal ultimacy. Define your terms. You seem to equate the two. This is a straw man.

Fallacy of limited alternatives. You're assuming that this was synergistic, and that means, by definition Pharaoh cooperated volitionally with God in this. Do you believe that

this was cooperative? If so, then you have a problem, because the voice of the verb "to harden" in Romans 9 is active, not middle. Middle voice indicates cooperation. The

text does not support your assertion. It would also have Pharaoh obeying God's preceptive will to say that, so this makes no sense.

Total depravity means inability to cooperate toward regeneration, it does not mean that persons are incapable of doing acts of relative good. God hardened Pharoah's heart
to demonstrate His power. "Why" isn't the issue. The text says He did, and that is all we need to know. See part two of this posting.

 

Actually, this will be a three part posting:

This is part two:

However, the point of the Romans text has been missed. (Ben Elohim has introduced a red herring and overlooks some major points).

The thrust of Ben E.'s exegesis is that election is not of works, but it is also not of PROMISE.. Paul is lamenting that not all Jews are saved. On the positive side, he acknowledges this isn't about the election of nations. It is about individual election. The point is about individual salvation and God's sovereignty in election (the text even uses the term). To somehow contrast this foundational principle of the faith to merely “God saved the Jews and now will save the Gentiles” overlooks the entire substance of Paul’s argument. From what I can tell, the thesis is found here: Paul notes that not all Abraham's children are Israel but only children of the promise, that is, children of
Abraham AND Isaac AND Jacob through whom Christ must also come to bless the nations as promised to the three patriarchs. This seems to indicate that after establishing the doctrine of justification by faith in the preceding chapters, Paul is going to show that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith, e.g. He elects a plan, not a people. However, this can not be, because overlooks numerous points.

ON WHAT IS THIS PROMISE BASED? Foreseen faith or foreseen wickedness? Abraham's children are Israel and only children of Israel and Isaac and Jacob through whom Christ come to bless the nations is in view, this begs the question, "Why did God elect Isaac not Esau? Why did God elect Abraham, and especially, why are so few
being saved and not more? Is it about their faith? Is it about Christ? No, it is about God's purpose in election. This is what is in view in chapter 9. This has nothing to do
with a foreseen faith election or the election of Christ or the election of a plan. It is about the election of some over and against others. Why? Because God mercies whom He will mercy and compassions whom He will compassion. It also overlooks the relationship of Romans 9 to Romans 8 in favor of the relationship to Romans 10 and 11.

This is a major issue.

Watch what BE does, when he writes:

No, in context, Paul is using this as an example of God's power.

When we say something like, “So if salvation and the covenant are open to everyone, there is the appearance that God has not been faithful to his word – his word has failed.” You miss this point entirely. Paul is in no way saying that the covenant is open “to everyone” (every person in all of history) but to Jews and Gentiles alike – that is, not limited to those who are in Abraham’s genealogy, and He has no need of establishing the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. He has already explained that. The question Paul is asking is why some Jews do have faith in Christ and some do not.

If we read Rom 9 as it was written and not as it is pasted together here, we find that Paul’s point continues to be, as he says at the end of Rom 2, that the Jew is the one who is a Jew inwardly and not a Jew outwardly.

Rom 9:7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the
flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Before we advance, what is Paul talking about here? Of course, he is talking about the fact that Isaac had a brother – Ishmael. Abraham had 2 sons, but only one of them we are result of the promises of God.

Now think about that, you who say this passage is about some kind of corporate election, or those who are not sure what Paul is talking about here: Paul is saying that not all of Abraham’s offspring receive the promise, and not all of Isac's offspring receive ther promise. That is, inherently, an argument against corporate election! The promise was certainly made to Abraham – but in what way?

In the way Paul outlines next:

9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son."

I am going to rabbit-trail a second here to the book of Hebrews to get clarity for a moment about what happened in the birth of Isaac to make a specific point. In Hebrews, it says:

Heb 11: 11By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
This is reiterated in Rom 4 when Paul says:

Rom 4: 19He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. 20No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21fully convinced that
God was able to do what he had promised.

Without belaboring the passage and trying to get it to say something about dead men which it may not, it says without any question that the birth of Isaac was God’s work and not the work of Abraham who might have been able. Isaac was not just something God foresaw and was willing to work with: Isaac’s birth was a matter of God working out His promise to Sarah and Abraham by faith. Abraham and Sarah were not able to have any more children: God was able to give them a child by which He would fulfill His promise.

If Abraham and Isaac are the example of what God does in election, they are an example which, in the first part, rules out corporate election because not all the sons of Abraham receive the promise, and in the second part, underscores the particular nature of God’s work by the example that Isaac was born not by the physical ability of Abraham and Sarah but by the promise and active work of God. As far as Christ goes, this is nowhere in the text of Romans 9.

Paul continues:

Rom 9:10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

Let’s leave no doubt, as this passage refers to Gen 25:

21And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren. And the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22The children struggled together within her, and she said, "If it is thus, why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD. 23And the LORD said to her,"Two nations are in your womb,and two peoples from within you shall be divided;the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger."

24When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name
Esau. 26Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.

And thus Paul says

Rom 9:13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Now please let’s ask the question: is Paul talking about a corporate election as he cites this passage? Where is Jesus even mentioned here? (He isn't). The answer comes back from all people not arguing for the Reformed position: “Clearly God is prophesying two nations in the struggling and birth of Jacob and Esau.” Is Paul talking about justification by faith, e.g. foreseen faith? No, he can't be, because that's what he's ruling out by placing election apart from works and on his CALL. This goes directly
back to chapter 8, THOSE HE FOREKNEW, HE ALSO PREDESTINED, THOSE HE PREDESTINED, HE CALLED, THOSE HE CALLED HE JUSTIFIED, THOSE HE
JUSTIFIED HE GLORIFIED. As soon as you see the word "call" in verse 11, immediately that should send up a flag. Where else does Paul talk about a call? Romans 8!

What is God foreknowing? What is the basis of the call? Foreseen faith? No, the text does not say that. The word is used to indicate that God foreknows, e.g. knows relationally the person He predestinates and calls, justifies, and glorifies. That text sets those verbs in subordinate clauses indicating logical and causal order. If election is by faith in Christ (since He is the fulfillment of the promises), then election must a result of justification! However, the order of chapter 8 is exactly reversed. Election is not the result of justification, nor is it calling. Election and calling precede justification.

Foreknowlege and predestination therefore come before the calling. What does Paul do here? He talks about electing Isaac not Esau before either were born. This is an obvious parallel.

The basis is God ALONE. It is His sovereign choice. This makes sense of 9:11 and all that will follow particularly Foreseen wickedness? No! 9:11 rules this out. Ben E. has utterly missed the point that this text is establishing the basis for the promise (Christ) and the call. In so doing, he tries to make individual salvation, which is by faith in Christ, a manifestation of inclusion in the corporate election that comes through the descendents of Abraham, culminating in Christ. Thus, this only sets back the issue of corporate election by one step. His exegesis fails for that reason. It isn't merely, the establishment that we are made Israel via justification by faith apart from works and in Christ, who is descended from the patriarchs, it is about the very basis of the call to do this! Why do some believe and not
others? Why are some Jews not being saved and others of them, less and less, being saved. Why are so many Gentiles being saved by comparison. Why are some called and not others? Paul's answer is, "God's mercy" is the difference, and His mercy is grounded in His sovereignty and His call to the individual. Thus he writes,
"so that God's purpose in election might stand..." election of whom? Christ? No, the individuals being saved.

Now, there is no doubt that God is telling Rebekah that two nations will arrive from her womb. There is also no doubt that God is saying that ”the {people descended from} older will serve the {people descended from} younger”.

But does that answer the question that is asked, “Is Paul Talking about a corporate election as he cites this passage?” The answer is no: it does not answer that question. It
escapes answering the question by failing to observe a basic tenet of sola Scriptura: the word of God is the best interpreter of the word of God; tota Scriptura is necessary to
rely on sola Scriptura. Likewise making this about becoming part of these promises to Israel through Christ and not discussing the basis of the promise, "the call," also avoids answering the question that Paul is asking and clearly avoids the reasons he gives.

By asserting that the passage in Genesis in its primary context only refers to the positions of two nations, the non-Reformed advocate forgets that the passage in Romans has the authority to inform our view of Genesis. I want to underscore this point by demonstrating other places where Paul does this again – where he makes a point critical to Christian theology which is not necessarily evident in a first-pass, one-context reading of the OT. In Hebrews 9, Paul (if you want to debate it’s Paul, that’s fine: start a
new thread) spends half of the 28 verses in this chapter describing the work in the temple that the priest did for the sins of the people. But he then takes the detail of that work and says
Heb 9: 23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our
behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

In this, Paul says that what was imperfect but present in the Old Covenant is manifest and made clear in the New Covenant.

Moreover, in Heb 1, Paul says this:
Heb 1: 7Of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire."

8But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed youwith the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

10And,
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end."

Now think on that: no Jew would look at these passages and deny that they are about God Almighty – but Paul here says, “wait: these are not just about God the Father,
but implicitly about God the Son, the savior Jesus Christ” – and the Jew plainly would deny any such thing. If we take the approach that the passage in the OT can only mean what it meant to the Jew who first wrote it or first read it and not what Scripture itself reads the passage to mean in a later revelation, we are left without some of the greatest passages on Christology in the NT.

All of that is said to indicate that Paul is making a different application in Rom 9 than was made in Gen 25. That application can be summed up in a single phrase which he himself uses: “in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”. That purpose of “election” was evident in the birth of Isaac (not in the birth of Ishmael), and was made evident in the birth of Esau and Jacob.

“But,” comes the objection, “Aren’t Jacob and Esau types, or patriarchs, of two people? Doesn’t that indicate that God is electing nations and not individuals?” They certainly
are patriarchs of two people. The problem is that Paul has already eliminated the idea that this patriachical relationship is the basis of salvation, the basis of the promise: he
has already said as much, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Who is “Israel” here – the nation? No: it is Jacob. There can be little doubt that in v. 6
Paul is talking about the individual persons descended from one man (Jacob, who is called Israel {Gen 32}), as he is talking about the individual persons descended from one
man in the conclusion of the sentence in v. 7 (Abraham).

God makes a promise to Abraham that is manifest in Isaac; God makes a promise to Isaac, and it is manifest (not in the son Isaac loved more, but) in Jacob – and God’s promise is not because of something Jacob did, but before either Jacob or Esau had done anything at all. Consider it, please: if Paul were talking about the election of the nation in Jacob, Paul would here be saying, “God chose Israel before the nation had done anything good or evil.” The reader must consider that Paul has already said, “not
all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. Paul has already said that the fulfillment of God’s promise is not in every Jew but only in those who are Jews inwardly. If
Paul is here asserting that His promises are fulfilled in all of the Jews – all those descended as a nation from Jacob – then he is simply ignoring or overturning what he has
already said.

The purpose of Paul so far is undeniable: to enumerate that God did not make a promise or an election of a “nation” in the sense that all the descendants of Abraham of Isaac were shoo-ins. Paul is saying that God’s promise is fulfilled in all who are of like faith to Abraham, Isaac and Israel. If we say, "Paul notes that not all Abraham's children are Israel but only children of the promise, that is, children of Abraham AND Isaac AND Jacob through whom Christ must also come to bless the nations as promised to the three patriarchs," we still have not escaped the issue of corporate election, which this passage rejects, because it makes a person a member of the nation, and therefore the recipient of the corporate redemption in Christ. However, the text is designed specifically to have nothing to do with foreseen faith or actual faith in
Christ as the basis of this election! It specifically reads, "It is NOT OF HIM WHO WILLS OR THE ONE WHO RUNS BUT OF HIM WHO MERCIES," such a position would necessarily ground election in faith in Christ and thus man, not God. Paul's thesis runs exactly the reverse!

Who is the one that wills? The one who has faith. Who is the one who runs? The one that disbelieves. Therefore, it, election, has to do with God. Now, Paul has already said we are justified by faith. However, notice the language, "but because of his call," which in chapter 8 is placed prior to justification. Justification is conditional. Is election, the ground of the call, conditional or unconditional? THIS IS THE QUESTION PAUL IS NOW ADDRESSING. Justification has already been grounded in call and the agency has already been shown to be faith. This isn't the issue. The issue now is "What is the basis of the call?" Paul's answer: election. Paul is explaining the chain of Rom. 8:29-30ff, again, all verbs presented in a logical, causal chain. Calling is preceded by predestining, and predestining by foreknowing. Foreknowing what? Predestining what?

The text continues, "So that His purpose in ELECTION might stand, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call. The next two verses talk about God's love and hate of the two brothers. Again, why?

Verse 11...foreseen faith? No. Foreseen wickedness? No. Ben E. misses that connection. Nobody disagrees that people go to hell because they sin. Sin is wickedness. Nobody disagrees that justification is conditioned on faith. Again, the call is before either. On what is the call based? Election! Now, if election is about
foreseen faith, then what about foreseen wickedness and reprobation? Nope, this text makes it clear election and calling, discussed already in chapter 8 are apart from A N Y T H I N G good OR EVIL. Is believing good? Certainly. Is disbelieving EVIL? Isn't unbelief a sin? Well, apeithia is the word for both unbelief and disobedience in the New Testament. Paul says "Whatever is not of faith is sin." Moreover, Scripture says that God pours out his wrath on the children of disobedience, "apeithia." Likewise, Jesus
is said to be the propitiation for sins. Propitiation is the satisfaction of God's wrath. Therefore, if apeithia receives God's wrath, it is sin. Unbelief is thus a sin. Certainly,
and this takes takes foreseen faith and wickedness out of the grounds for election altogether! Paul is grounding election in the INDEPENDENCE of God. Thus he writes, it
(ELECTION) does not DEPEND on the man who wills (believes, does good) or the man who runs (disbelieves/does evil). The ground of election is the independence of God.

He's missed the entire relationship to the immediate context: When we read that, Paul realizes there is an objection:

Rom 9: 14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?

Now why is that question evident? Why would Paul bring it up? It is because some Gentiles are saved? No: it is because some Jews are not saved. It is a reiteration of the theme in Rom 1-2-3 that man is not saved by his works, which Paul expands here to be that man is not saved by his father’s works, either. The book of Romans is a great revelation of the Gospel because it is consistent to exclude all man’s boasting in the face of God’s perfection. Man cannot be justified by what he does – because his work
is unrighteous. Man also cannot be saved by what God promises to somebody else – righteousness is not a birthright. What Paul says in 9:13 is that God chooses those whom He will “love” by His own counsel and not by what man does to draw attention to himself. That is the basis of the question “is there injustice on God’s part?” -- not that God has somehow also saved the Gentiles, but that some of the sons of the patriarchs are not saved at all in spite of the promises made.

In that, Paul continues:
By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Literally, I will mercy whom I

will mercy and compassion whom I will compassion. These are verbs, not nouns. Thus things like voice, mood, and tense are important. Parse them and look at the
relationships. If there was any synergism involved, there would be a middle voice or passive voice. These are active and indicative. Paul is talking about God's sovereignty
in election with respect to the question of individual salvation. Again, if you make it about the fulfilment of the promises in Christ and, by extension, faith in Christ as the
basis for inclusion in those promises, you have only moved the issue back one step. You have not answered the question that Paul asks, which is why do some believe and not others. The position that is being taken by Ben E. can only result in the foreseen faith fallacy of election, which the text clearly rules out by emphasizing the sovereignty of God and ruling out ANYTHING good or evil as the basis for calling and thus election, since ch. 8 grounds calling in foreknowlege and predestination.

Paul here underscores that it is strictly God’s prerogative to have mercy, and that man does not earn or deserve mercy. How does he do that? By referencing Gen 33:19,

which I provide here in context:

17And the LORD said to Moses, "This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name." 18Moses said, "Please show
me your glory." 19And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be
gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
When God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” is God saying something about any nation? Of course not: God is showing a particular mercy to a particular man for God’s own purpose. Juxtaposed against that is the example of Pharoah:

16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I
might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Ben E. says this is a comparison between the hardened Jews who were not turning to Christ that Paul is praying for to be saved. In part, that may be true, but the citation
is given as an illustration of God's mercy to Moses verses God's judgment of Pharaoh. The point isn't to draw a parallel, it is to illustrate God's mercying whom He will
mercy and compassioning whom He will compassion.

On the one hand, God shows mercy to Moses, and on the other, God raises Pharoah up to demonstrate God’s power. God hardened Pharoah's heart in order to demonstrate His power over the Egyptian gods and Pharaoh himself who was believed to be a god. This entire pontification about total depravity and why God needed to
harden the heart of Pharaoh if he was totally depraved turns on Scott Emmerson and B.E.;'s straw man about the doctrine of total depravity, namely that Calvinists believe the will is destroyed and man is as bad as he could be. Perhaps interaction with the mountain of Reformed exegesis on that topic should be considered before mounting such an amateurish attack on the doctrine is in order. Total depravity relates to the inability of man to respond to the gospel positively without being drawn by the Holy Spirit
efffectively. It has nothing to do with man's other abilities or with him doing practical evil as much as he wishes. Certainly Arminians also agree that God restrains the evil in men's hearts all the time or this world would be completely out of control. The issue raised by Paul in the hardening of Pharaoh stands between the mercying of some and the the passing over of others. The text does not affirm equal ultimacy (Ben Elohim is also operating on the premise that double predestination and equal ultimacy are the
same...hyperCalvinism affirms the latter as the manner of the former, but traditional Calvinism does not do this). It does however serve as an illustration of the mercy of God and the reprobation of others, FOR A PURPOSE. The parallel isn't Pharoah/Jews...It is Pharaoh/no mercy, Moses/mercy; Isaac/love; Esau/hate. Why did God have mercy on Moses and Isaac and not have mercy on Pharaoh and Esau? Foreseen faith? Foreseen wickedness? Why did God call Moses and Isaac over Pharaoh, Moses step-brother, and Esau, Isaac's biological brother? In order to demonstrate His power and work out His purpose. What is this purpose? Salvation. What is it's grounding? Faith? No. Christ? No, He's the means, but not the ground of election itself, which Paul has already stated is His theme here. Wickedness? No. It is mercy, not a noun, a VERB. It is God's mercying and God's compassioning. This is not the extension of mercy (noun) in Christ to all who will believe. This is God mercying whom He will mercy and compassioning whom He will compassion. Thus, it, election, is not about, e.g., is unrelated to the one who wills (the believer) and the one who runs (the unbeliever), and since, faith is not morally neutral, and the text mitigates against anything good or evil in the person elected or reprobated. this rules out a libertine act of
faith as the basis of election.

Now comes the illustration of the potter's freedom? Why? Well, who determines the pots' design? Who are the lumps? Is Christ the lump taken from Isaac? No, there are two lumps. Christ and the promise are not even in view.

Paul knows exactly what the next objection from the listener must be:Who personally can resist the will of God? Now: why make that objection is Paul is only talking about nations here? Why worry “who” personally can resist the will of God if Paul’s argument so far is about nations and not about individuals? How does this question make any sense at all if Paul means, “What nation can resist his will”? An especially in the context of his reply: 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?Paul cannot be
talking about corporate election if the thing making the objection is the personal individual.

Of course, the objection can come, “Well, Paul is talking to some person, right? Isn’t he just responding to the hypothetical reader just like anyone might in raising the objections to his point?”

I say: sure. It is possible if you do not read the rest of the verse:
Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Paul is here making it clear that the individual has objected, but that it is the individual that has been molded and is subject to God’s purpose.
21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels
of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'" 26"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

The text here is clear. Paul is talkiing about individual salvation (vs. 1 - 6). Those INDIVIDUALS called from the Jews and Gentiles, all of whom were SOVEREIGNLY
mercied, e.g. made for honored use and the rest reprobated, e.g. made for dishonorable use. Did these pots determine their own destiny? Is there a middle voice verb here?

No, the participle "prepared" is a PASSIVE participle. This clinches the issue. If there was synergism here, then there would necessarily be some contextual hint that these pots had a hand in their designation. Nope, they didn't.

27And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." 29And as Isaiah predicted,"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah."

And here, I think is where BE’s thesis makes the least sense: Paul is unequivocal in these citations of the OT that God’s purpose is to fulfill His promise without regard to
the genealogy of Israel. If this is about the completion of the promises in Christ, we are back to a spiritualized version of the genalogical promises themselves and the grounding of election in faith in Christ, contrary to the logical/causal order between them in Romans 8. When that is accounted for, we cannot read the end of Romans 9 and consider that this is about God’s apparent injustice in saving Gentiles, but is about how God’s promise is fulfilled in
spite of some Jews not being saved. He grounds this is the election of God (9:11) and then cites examples to show God's sovereignty in the matter of mercy/compassion and reprobation and the goal of doing both as a display of His glory, and then concludes with a discussion of the potter's freedom.

 

You've read him but clearly did not understand it or you would not define it the way you have here.

You wrote:

Here is John Calvin's definition:

"...Our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede), that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else but concupiscence" (from 2.1.8 of Institutes)

But neglected to mention:

"Those men whom Scripture calls "natural men" were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how
many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good." (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 274-275).

Have you read: http://www.graciouscall.org/books/calvin/institutes/bookii/bookii04.html , http://www.graciouscall.org/books/calvin/institutes/bookii/bookii03.html , or
http://www.graciouscall.org/books/calvin/institutes/bookii/bookii05.html ?

Total depravity only means man is lost (Luke 19:10) and that he is impotent to recover himself from his ruined estate (John 6:44, 65, Eph 2:1, 2:5; Rom 3:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4-6). Fallen man does not desire God, he loves darkness and hates the light (John 3:19,20) so he will not come into Christ at all except he be reborn by the Holy Spirit (John 3:6, John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-66).

This question is a trap! The key word is "needed." No, God did not NEED to to this, but he nevertheless declares He did, and this fits exactly with Paul's assertion that
election and reprobation are grounded in His independence and sovereignty. One is a matter of mercy, the other a matter of justice. One is active. The other we believe is
passive, unless you are a hyperCalvinist. The question is who was the first cause and the second cause of the hardening? God did this to show His power. This is Paul's point in using it as an illustration. He is not, however, addressing the issue of active or passive reprobation. The hardening was not with a view toward salvation anyway.

Paul uses it to illustrate sovereignty, not the mode or method of reprobation.

Obeying commands of God and doing acts of relative good are not an issue. Do you believe that man needs to be drawn to Christ by the Father in order to be saved, or can
he do this on his own apart from that? If not, then how do you exegete John 6 to show that all those that come are not all those who are drawn and not infallibly all raised on
the last day?

You seem to be loading the question with the intention of accusing johnp and the rest of us of believing in active reprobation, which assumes something about the purpose of Paul's citation that is not true. The text says what it says. The question is why did God do it and how did he do it?

Do you understand what double predestination and equal ultimacy are or not?

Yes, but he's doing so in the sense that he's lamenting that they are not saved as a nation because God has sovereignly chosen not to use a divine set of promises to a nation in for the basis of individual election to salvation.

Yes

No. Then this still does not anticipate the objection, because all that needs to be done is to establish justification by faith. This isn't about the establishment of the doctrine
of justification by faith, it is about God's sovereignty over election. Justification by faith and the inclusion in the promises to Isaac are not in view, because the text
specifically mentions God's choice of Isaac over Esau PRIOR TO ANYTHING EITHER OF THEM HAD DONE..thus their foreseen faith or sin are not at all in mind. The topic isn't the nature of THE PROMISE. The topic is the choice of God..."So that God's purposes in ELECTION might stand, it is not of the one who WILLS (HAS FAITH) or
RUNS (DOES NOT BELIEVE). Election is about MERCY and COMPASSION, which are out of the category of justice. As soon as you introduce the element of foreseen faith or foreseen wickedness into the mix with respect to election, you move out of the category of mercying and compassioning into the category of justice.

No, the parallels in NOT between Pharaoh and the Jews and Moses and the Gentiles/Christians, the parallel is between Pharoah and no mercy and Moses and mercy, Esau/hate, Isaac/love. The language does not support a person/group parallel, it supports a person/action parallel, the subject of which is God, not man.

Again, BECAUSE OF INDIVIDUAL ELECTION. Note that he quotes Hosea 2:23. The parallel gives us the sensus plenor of that "those not my people" are the believing Gentiles. In Hosea's immediate context, he is writing of the Northern Kingdom, and in chapter one, Hosea draws the parallel between Lo-Ruhamah as Ephraim/Israel's
Northern Kingdom and Lo-Ammi is Judah. Then God declares He will have compassion on one and not the other, again, grounded in his sovereignty. Hosea never says that Judah is elected/restored based on its faithfulness/foreseen faith!

Yes

 

Ben.

Yes.

You have a short memory, let me remind you of what you said, Exodus 4:21 says that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and henceforth Pharoah would not let the Israelites go.
So that 'henceforth'='So that'. He made sure.

What question?

What question?

The passing by bit is as good as predestination because it has the same effect. Predestination to Hell is not scriptural in the way predestination to life is. Therefore I am out of step with scripture to this amount but it has the same effect and carries a far greater shock value to saying other.
The choice of choosing is the same as the choice of not choosing. You must choose those you will not choose. That is logic. Supralapsarians rule!

johnp.

 

It is about the only thing you have said that I can agree with so far.

That's a bad sign I must be wrong then.

johnp.

 

Ben.

2. Do you confirm your own previous admission that an unregenerate man can use his common sense to obey the command of God?
Yes. I believe men can use their common sense, but, in looking after themselves and their concern. It cause and effect that is in operation. If a man feels threatened then he will move his position until he feels safe. Kings don't like anyone messing with theirs but if it comes to courting disaster they tend to be reticent about losing what they can keep.
...unregenerate man can use his common sense to obey the command of God? If he sees it is in his benefit yes, in his fallen nature's interest.

I believe that God is the first cause of everything that happens.

I answered this. Yes.

johnp.

 

Ben.

One more question johnp.

But why Ben? You approve the scripture yourself. You agreed it was God that hardened Pharaoh's heart. Answer the question yourself.

You speak as if you don't believe it was God that hardened His heart against Pharaoh. Why should I ignore it? Does it nullify Exodus 4:21?
Make up your mind man is it to the right or the left?

johnp.

 

Interesting GeneMBridges, but God could have hardened the hearts of the Pharoah's cooking and tasting staff, who could have poisoned the Pharoah and thus ended the tyranny against the Israelites.

He could have taken not "the firstborn" in death, but all the Egyption leaders thus throwing Egypt into chaos. He didn't because He did not want the Israelites to remain in Egypt, which they could have because they then could have "taken over" the country. That would have presented the possibility of Jesus being born in Cairo. Imagine that if you will. Jesus of Cairo!

God could have "planted" a Judas on the Pharoah's staff who could have set off a suicide bomb thus killing or maming most of the Pharoah's staff of advisors and the Pharoah himself. But alas, God did not do that, but instead hardened the Pharoah's heart. Seems to me God had it worked out to bring himself the Glory and Honor, thus depriving those pseudo-gods of their demanded honor and glory. Reminiscent of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel?

The Pharoah was an elect of God wouldn't you say? Likewise Moses was an elect of God too! Same with Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, Jethro, and all the rest we read about in God's word. But what about all the un-named millions down through time, were they not all the elect of God? Without them, there would have been no "great leaders". Wasn't Hitler an Elect of God? Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, etc. etc. Isn't it God who appoints the rulers, regardless of the political system of the society?

I am convinced that you have accepted a false concept of "the elect"....simply because you want it to be that way.

 

Wes,
You are beyond confused.

Gene, amen. Have you read Piper's "The Justification of God" ? It is the fortress of chapter 9 that can not be equalled, and not even dared to be argued against.

Actually, the funny thing is the whole point of Paul in chapter 9 was not even brought up by Ben.
Everything, not only 9 but ALL of Romans 1-11 is hinged on Romans 9:6.
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed.
Chew on that for a while Ben. But I assume from reading your eisOgesis that you don't have any teeth yet.