Understanding God’s election

[Silverhair]

I don't know if I have ever read a complete exegesis of Romans 9 by Owen. I do know he was completely on board with individual election and reprobation. But you have to understand that the Puritans like Owen did not put up an either or system of logic like we tend to do now. For example, Owen also said "Wherefore, that which is now proposed unto consideration in answer hereunto, is the readiness of Christ to receive every sinner, be he who or what he will, that shall come unto him." A modern Calvinist, who gets his theology from current theologians, will tend to find a contradiction there. I mean, that statement sounds like something @Silverhair could have said, yet that was Owen. Owen also said "But indeed Christ has no such power, no such ability; he cannot save unbelieving, impenitent sinners, for this cannot be done without denying himself, acting contrary to his word, and destroying his own glory." You won't understand Calvinism if you don't read the Puritan writings. The modern system seems to me to be a lot more emphasizing of determinism, and it so emphasized the logical steps of how this works that it begins to undermine clear teachings that are vital to Christianity.

If someone comes to Christ they will be saved. And that goes for everyone and anyone. And no one is shut out from that. The invitations of the gospel are real and actual. If you do not believe this you are something different than the Puritan Calvinists. Believing in the sovereignty of God is one thing but what I see some of the modern Calvinists do is almost weaponize Romans 9 and turn God into a threatening being who tells you that he may just decide to send you to Hell and then threatens that you had better not object. I admit that God has a perfect right to send any or all of us to Hell because of the way we are but most of scripture is really showing that God doesn't want to do that and you just need to be careful not to build a whole system that hinges on a certain interpretation of Romans chapter 9.

Never thought I would be put in the same sentence as Owen.

 

[Silverhair]

Troll, once again:



You’re incapable to do this, to be honest in your responses.

I have yet to see to answer the question KY. You dance around and expect people to just believe whatever you post. The fact that people disagree with you brings out your usual response. Nothing.

@DaveXR650 has given you clear comments regarding Rom 9 and you still will not respond with a clear answer in support of your view.

 

[kyredneck]

I have yet to see to answer the question KY.

For Pete’s sake, please, please, what is the question?

 

[DaveXR650]

‘Commentary Dave’, like his mentor (who he doesn’t really agree with deep down), takes 10,000 words to say what could be done in 10.

I would be happy to consider Owen a mentor. Still, as a Baptist, I would naturally disagree on infant baptism, the role of the church in government, and I believe the Lord's supper is a remembrance. And that is beside the fact that I believe grace is resistible and that Christ died for everyone.

 

[DaveXR650]

I guess where I would come down on election is that no matter how it works, and even if it is true exactly as the most serious Calvinist describes it, you still have to face the fact that Calvinists like Owen taught that when a person hears the gospel, they are not to concern themselves with election but are to come to Christ and according to Owen, whenever the glories and virtues of Christ and the gospel is preached it is accompanied by an invitation to come to Christ and this invitation is real and to everyone who hears. The theology of how this works and and the true meaning of our free will and level of autonomy I find interesting but not really important. i do have a real problem with anyone who claims that there is no real offer of salvation to everyone who hears the gospel.

 

[Silverhair]

For Pete’s sake, please, please, what is the question?

You continue to post
"Is there unrighteousness with God?

Why doth he still find fault?"

So I asked you what is the point your trying to make KY.

Do you think they are a gotcha comment? Taking words out of context means nothing, proves nothing.

 

[kyredneck]

what is the point your trying to make

HERE

 

[kyredneck]

I would be happy to consider Owen a mentor. Still, as a Baptist, I would naturally disagree on infant baptism, the role of the church in government, and I believe the Lord's supper is a remembrance. And that is beside the fact that I believe grace is resistible and that Christ died for everyone.

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
7 To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Ro 1

24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

Is he like "a lot of people" who think Romans 9 is addressing 'Jews only'?

 

[Silverhair]

HERE

So what is the point you are trying to make KY? We have all seen those verses and it is obvious that you have just picked a few verses that you think support your view or are gotcha verses, not sure which.

@DaveXR650 gave you some help in understanding those verses but you have just ignored what he said.

 

[DaveXR650]

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
7 To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Ro 1

24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

Is he like "a lot of people" who think Romans 9 is addressing 'Jews only'?

The letter to the Romans is to the Romans. The subject in chapter nine is the Jews. That's why it starts out with Paul saying he loves his own people so much that he would be willing to be accursed for their sake. But they have a particular problem that is unique to them in that they believe that by being a Jew they are not included in all the preceding chapters of doctrine - because they are automatically in the covenant and saved because of their bloodline. Paul demolishes this by first talking about Ishmael and Isaac but if that weren't enough he uses the twins as a final crushing proof. If you just look at verses 31-33 you see that at last the message is that whoever believes and has faith will be saved, but that is true for gentiles and Jews as well. I am not saying that Romans 9 disproves individual election to salvation, only that it is not a proof of extreme determinism and when anyone takes the warning not to reply against God out of context and tries to make it apply to their own dubious interpretation of a passage they are in danger of a serious mistake.

The bottom line is this. Since we all have sinned and are all guilty God indeed has the right to send all of us to Hell, or save all of us, or save some of us and send the others to Hell. It would not be unjust if God is indeed talking in Romans 9 exactly as the Calvinists explain it. And it would be correct as a general doctrine to warn all of us not to reply against God for things he does. This goes back to Job even. So if God wants to send Bill to Hell and save Ted then it truly is within his sovereign right to do so. But you have to ask, is that really what is being explained in Romans 9? I think not, and I think what we have is an announcement of expanding grace to gentiles also, which was troubling to some Jews and the overall message is that they need to let God call gentiles too to be part of this and rest assured that as Jews God also loves them but he asks faith, not a reliance on being part of a certain people.

 

[kyredneck]

The letter to the Romans is to the Romans. The subject in chapter nine is the Jews.

...and, pretend this isn't there, smack dab in the middle of the context:

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

Commentary Dave, you're no student of the word.

 

[DaveXR650]

...and, pretend this isn't there, smack dab in the middle of the context:

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

Commentary Dave, you're no student of the word.

The part you red lettered "vessels of wrath, fitted unto destruction" needs to be looked at carefully. Calvinists teach that God doesn't actually make these people evil so could this verse mean he endures their evil, giving them time to repent, but instead they fit themselves more and more for the destruction they deserve? God will indeed use that to show his wrath but my concern is if in your zeal for theological purity you don't misrepresent this and make it seem like God is putting some in this position rather than enduring the way they are acting. In other words, and I believe this is true, some Calvinists try to make it seem like there is some desire on God's part as part of his primary will, that these people be under wrath and awaiting destruction. How you look at this makes all the difference. And it may reveal much about our own view of God and how he interacts with us.

Verse 24 just amplifies what I said. That what we have here as the primary message is the expansion of God's opening of salvation to gentiles as well as Jews. And that's why I am concerned about an exegesis of this passage that makes the primary goal of God to be of him telling us that he is going to pick and choose who he stomps on and then warns not to question it, when it looks to me like the message is that Jews need to be careful not to rely on their family background for salvation and not to be upset about gentiles being included as this is according to God's sovereignty. And the chapter ends by an encouragement that we can all come if we come by faith.

I think the idea of whether the Jews were primarily relying on their racial background or if they were works based legalists is open to debate from chapter 9 but that's just something I don't know.

The classic Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 doesn't really bother me but a close look at what the Jews believed and what is said in other passages does make one stop and wonder. And I would just caution Calvinists not to portray God wrongly and not to ascribe a warning God gives about doubting his right as sovereign Lord to instead be a warning not to doubt their own interpretation of a particular passage. They have no right to do that.

 

[kyredneck]

@DaveXR650

Does it somehow lessen the severity of Ro 9, make it more palatable, by assigning the hard parts to Jews only?

 

[DaveXR650]

Does it somehow lessen the severity of Ro 9, make it more palatable, by assigning the hard parts to Jews only?

The severity of this should not be lessened. What real Calvinists did was balance the severity with the fact that now is the time to be saved and the invitation is wide open for all to come to Christ. If you don't believe me look at the most famous of the hell, fire and brimstone sermons of all time, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", by Edwards. Read the last two paragraphs and you will see that he ends with an invitation for all, Jew and gentile, to come.

Answer me this. Why do some Calvinists take such a joy in depicting God as just loving the fact that he has a sovereign right to stomp us right into the ground. Of course he does but the fact that he then turns around and offers us salvation instead, and knowing that we are so unable to do anything right ourselves, asks only that we come relying on him to pardon us. And, as far as I can tell, he even provides grace to help us come to him, not just the information. This is what I think is happening in Romans 9, along with a warning specifically to Jews (in this case) not to try some other way. We are allowed of course to read this and benefit as gentiles by applying it to ourselves in the sense that we may also try some other way of approaching God. I mean, does the fact the letter was written to Romans mean we shouldn't bother to read it?

I am afraid that the real problem here is that there is a branch of Calvinism that does not believe in a free offer of salvation and does not believe that God has anything to say to those who are not already pre-justified by a sovereign act of God and that the whole message of the "gospel" is really just a finding out of who the elect are. I just don't believe this way.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

1 – Because of the disobedience (sin) of Adam and Eve,
all humans are born with an inherited sin nature,
and are bent on sinning instead of following God (Romans 3:9-18).
Having a saving faith is against their very nature!

Your whole O.P. there is BEAUTIFUL, Dougcho.

I worship the God that is right there all through The Bible.

I love what you have written!

Thank you, for loving Jesus!

 

[kyredneck]

...What real Calvinists did ... Why do some Calvinists... there is a branch of Calvinism

...not interested in what Calvinists have done. Besides, there's no mention of them in the text.

You say Romans 9 is applicable to 'Jews only' until the 24th verse. Did God not have a people among the nations during the Old Covenant? [John 10:16; Isaiah 54:1; Galatians 4:27]

 

[DaveXR650]

...not interested in what Calvinists have done. Besides, there's no mention of them in the text.

Yes you are. You cannot use their arguments and then dismiss any discussion you don't like with the idea that you are not interested in what a group said that is saying the same thing as you say. Good grief.

You say Romans 9 is applicable to 'Jews only' until the 24th verse. Did God not have a people among the nations during the Old Covenant? [John 10:16; Isaiah 54:1; Galatians 4:27]

I'm only saying that the writer himself started the chapter by explaining that he has a special love for his own people and was now going to have a word with them because they had a specific presupposition that could be harmful. We all can use anything in the Bible as a lesson to us and for our benefit though.

Look. If you don't like the explanation I gave of Romans 9 keep it as you see it. But understand, the explanation you bring is straight out of the Calvinist handbook. The other thing I would caution you on, and Calvinists too, is more important. If you read guys like Owen, you find in his Calvinism two things going on. On is an unapologetic adherence to the doctrines of grace and to God's sovereign predestination of all things. I agree with most but not all of that. My modern either/or method of thought, based on being taught the scientific method I guess just makes it hard for me to hold two truths at the same time.

But the other more important thing to think about is this. Owen, while holding strictly to the doctrines of grace, just as forcefully insisted upon Christs purpose to take in all who come to him. Sometimes it is a little confusing to see them go back and forth, seeming to have no trouble in the same sentence, to declare that only the elect are effectively called and will come and at the same time the admonition goes out to everyone in a true invitation, to come to Christ by faith. And faith is freely called the "condition". Unless you understand both of these principles you will either hate Calvinism or you will become like some on this site who deny an open invitation for sinners to come to Christ and deny that God has anything to say to the non-elect because the elect have already been justified.

I'm not saying that is you, Ky, because you are always vague on you own beliefs, even while you call me undecisive and wishy-washy. But if it is, own up to it.

 

[kyredneck]

Yes you are.

Nope.

You cannot use their arguments

I don't recall using 'their arguments' of late. I may quote Gill, or Pink. or even Edersheim whenever I like the way they've articulated something, but I've my own mind when it comes to scripture. Good grief, you're 'the commentary guy' here, not me.

Again, there's no mention of Calvinists in Ro 9. What we have here is a blatant disregard on your part of plain statements from scripture, yea, you've literally flipped it around on it's head to force it to say the exact opposite of Paul's intent.

Paul says 'not from the jews only'.

You say, nope, it's 'Jews only'.

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't recall using 'their arguments' of late. I may quote Gill, or Pink. or even Edersheim whenever I like the way they've articulated something, but I've my own mind when it comes to scripture. Good grief, you're 'the commentary guy' here, not me.

This is true to some extent. You tend to come on with quips and out of context snatches of scripture which don't really shed any light. It does help to know that this comes mainly from your own mind. And usually, an insult is tacked on as above. Are you capable of addressing any of my points in the post 77 above, especially the bolded part? If not, I guess we're done.

 

[kyredneck]

But the other more important thing to think about is this. Owen, while holding strictly to the doctrines of grace, just as forcefully insisted upon Christs purpose to take in all who come to him.

All who come to Him do so because God has already wrought within them [John 3:21]. The natural man, void of the Spirit, will never come to Him [1 Corinthians 2:14].

the admonition goes out to everyone in a true invitation, to come to Christ by faith. And faith is freely called the "condition". Unless you understand both of these principles you will either hate Calvinism or you will become like some on this site who deny an open invitation for sinners to come to Christ and deny that God has anything to say to the non-elect because the elect have already been justified.

Romans 9 is not about proffering the gospel, it's about the purpose of God according to election, "not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles".