Romans 9: Predestination or Free Will? Part 4

[johngaul1234]

If God knows the beginning from the end, and many of the people in the history of this world has not heard the gospel. What choice did those people have?

Did Pharao did have a choice?

Did Lazaus have a choice in coming out of the tumb?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

God's foreknowledge is compatible with free will. Knowing something and causing something are two different things.

People who haven't heard the gospel have general revelation, which Paul says leaves them without excuse Rom. 1.

Also, the Spirit convicts the world of their need for Christ Jn. 16.

[sungminchoice]

Wedon't agree on positive-positive predestination, calvinist believe in positive-negative. God doesn't have to do anything to send people to hell but just pass them over. "He never damns by prerogative, but by prerogative he saves" This Prof is attacking a strawman. God by passing over pharoe, hardened his heart. The whole of Chapter 9 is talking about God's sovereignty. Hello? God is just in whatever choices that he makes. No matter how you cut it, God will show mercy on whoeverhe wishes

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The distinction between God choosing not to save and choosing to damn is meaningless, since either choice results in the same thing. But if you're reading Rom. 9 as applying to salvation, you are stuck with double predestination, b/ they are "vessels of wrath designed for destruction."

[sungminchoice]

yes, Pharoe was from the beginning vessels of wrath, and unbelivers are too. Just who is sovereign here? But at the same time, our question is not, are we vessels of wrath or glory, but it always should be are we sinful and in need of a savior. That's what we need to be asking, do you see what I am saying here? Like the Bible says, , we all are "child of wrath" when we're born, thank God for saving us, don't thank ourself for getting ourselves saved :) I hate this word limit on u tube lol

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No objection there.

[neborg67]

@sungminchoice

I agree.

Eph 2:1-3 (ESV)

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, LIKE THE REST OF MANKIND"

[cameronversluis]

"Just who is sovereign here?" Depends. Does God allow people to govern themselves? A.W. Pink says, "God rules on earth as surely as He does in heaven," but the Bible says that Satan is the god of this world, and tells us to pray for God's will to be done (assuming it's not already being done).

[cameronversluis]

Right, that's true, but you're also attacking a straw man. Arminians also believe that God has mercy on those He wishes, we just think that it's usually not arbitrary and doesn't result in damning and saving. Why automatically think that God's mercy is random, and those who are saved have been given more mercy than others? There are many whom God has showered with grace and yet have rejected Him. "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs." Jonah 2:8.

[cameronversluis]

Besides, if it is decided that someone will be damned (because they were not chosen) before they are born, their life will follow their chosen-ness, instead of their life resulting in their chosen-ness. According to the Bible, God chooses those who believe, but according to Calvinism, those God chooses will believe. Last time I checked, we're saved by grace THROUGH faith, not by grace UNTO faith.

[jwerner79]

Wow. Good job. This is rare that someone tells the truth about this. All six parts are exactly right on.

Thanks,

Jason

[Borderite76]

When Paul cites the OT in is writings does he usually follow a grammatical historical meaning, or does he sometimes reinterpret OT passages and apply them in ways not intended by the original writers? If so, why would this give us license to do the same, since we are not under the inspiration of the Spirit?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

There is no reason to see him "reinterpreting" Malachi, other than sustaining the Calvinist reading of Rom. 9. The passage works perfectly well just reading it as it is. So you have to seriously consider that Calvinists are are the ones reinterpreting scripture, not Paul.

On your other point, yes it is a problem if Paul is reinterpreting in ways never intended. I suggest Walter Kaiser, The New T. Use of the Old.

[Borderite76]

my question was not specifically about the Malachi passage. I have noticed that in his writings Paul sometimes takes passages originally written to the Jews and applies them to gentile believers. Like in Rom. 9:25-26. Certainly no one in Hosea's day would have given the verses the application Paul does.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

You may be right that people at that time wouldn't have seen this in Hosea, but arguably they should have. I don't think Paul is interpreting this passage in a way different from the original intention. Those "not my people" probably does refer to gentiles.

[JMackeyIII]

Paul did not step out of bounds in any way, that would be attacking the infallibility of scripture and everything the 1st century church accomplished in Christ.

Paul in his writings talk about the Gentiles being grafted into the vine. You are right they did not give that meaning to it because they where a stiffnecked people. Paul is applying what has been revealed, to what had been said.

there is only one Church, one Bride, one People.

[JMackeyIII]

there are none righteous no not one...

so none are going to come to God, for him to harden. all are hardened and God chooses those whom he softens.

He softened Noah so that he would have an elect to save.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Jesus said if he was lifted up he would "draw all men" to himself.

[JMackeyIII]

all is not all inclusive of every single man. you know this and if it were so this understanding would mean everyone is going to heaven because all were called to God. if you are called then you are sanctified, then glorified.

all men, means all men (greek, jew, gentile, slave, free)

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Your argument is rationalistic, not exegetical. Nothing in the text limits the meaning of "all" as you suggest, just your system of thought.

Jesus said "Many are called, but few are chosen" so your system is wrong.

[JMackeyIII]

see here you use one passage that only works against the point you are trying to make.

1: if many are called then "all" not are called.

2: if not all of the "many" are chosen then this would be less than "all".

3: How does this not show that from the mouth of Christ the Word of God He Himself speaks of election.

4: this statement is only a contradiction to your first comment of "all men".

[4thstreetstudycenter]

What it clearly shows is that God's calling is not always effective--a key rebuttal to Calvinist belief that if God calls, it's always effective. That's why Calvinists ignore John 12:32 and never answer what it means. I've raised it multiple times here, and received nothing but silence and changing the subject.

[JMackeyIII]

you still have not dealt with my point and assertion. And stop making this a calvin issue.

So you are stating that the plan of God is not effective, God can not make it so He gets what He wills, and man can overthrow the desires of God. You hold that God is incapable, You hold that God can be thwarted, and You hold that God bows to the will of man by His own choosing.

God never bows to the will of man, He is the Lord, You better start fearing Him, for He has mercy on who He has Mercy...

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Never would I say God CANNOT do anything. But according to scripture, he does not. God is never thwarted--his will is to extend freedom to personal beings. He is not "bowing" to the will of man, but allowing man to reject him if he wants to. That is what the Bible teaches.

[JMackeyIII]

no what you are saying is not in line with the prayer of Jesus in John 17, Paul's letter discussing election, and all of the old testament. weren't there many lepers in the time of elisha. but only naaman a syrian.

There is nothing I have that God wants, needs, desires, pursues, or lacks. God does not wait for me to do something that he has not already sovereignly decreed me to do. So I will not choose any other way other than that of the nature I have. So Lord of Glory give me a new nature.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Well, if all we do is determined beforehand, that makes reading the Bible a big waste of time, doesn't it? Looks like what will happen will happen. This conversation would be a waste of time also.

[JMackeyIII]

You only heap judgement on yourself for those trivial words.

We are commanded to love His Word, worship Him, tell the world, and be righteous. We do it because the Lord God of my Salvation commands it of all.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

According to your view, a command is meaningless, since you have no choice whether to obey it. Obedience is also meaningless apart from free choice. You can call it trivial, but I think the real problem is that you don't understand the point. Morality ceases to exist apart from choice.

[JMackeyIII]

my biblical view does have choice, it has choices to make and not to make. I did not say that my choices are not freely made. I have freely made every choice I have ever made.

What you keep stressing is that human nature will choose God. You must twist the scripture to get at a human nature that will come to God, separate of God's divine assistance.

There is nothing righteous in man, there is nothing that is within him to cause him to act righteously, So how can he righteously choose God.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

You said, "twist the scripture to get at a human nature that will come to God, separate of God's divine assistance." No. I believe God must "draw" anyone who believes. The difference is, I believe he "draws all men" Jn. 12:32

[JMackeyIII]

that is where arminian and calvin are almost the same. the crux of the whole debate I agree God draws anyone who believes <-check All men do not believe <- we agree i believe God must draw all who believe <-so do you if God draws a man how can he reject God. this would mean God is NOT: persuasive enough wonderful enough beautiful enough completely satisfying better than every other experience clear enough powerful enough to get us to do what is best

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No, he just draws us sufficiently to give us an opportunity, but not enough to compel us. Are you saying he can't do that?

[JMackeyIII]

Now you have to then deal with the same issues u put to calvinist:

Why didnt God draw them harder if it is best for them to go to heaven,

why did he choose you to give such a compelling set of circumstances to choose him

if God knew,why not continue trying, is God unable to find a convincing enough argument to get one to heaven.

why was it so easy for one person to understand, why did God not give him the ability to put it together

isn't it better for him to gain his soul then his free choice

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The biggest problem I'm having with all this is that it's all rationalistic and theoretical. Why he chooses to draw some more than others is unrevealed. Why he doesn't compel belief is also unrevealed. He apparently puts a high value on freely chosen grace.

I focus on exegesis of scripture, not on theory or speculation.

[JMackeyIII]

I do not hold any of the views you ascribe to me. Choice is a requirement. Obedience is a requirement.

Morality ceases to exist apart from a transcendent moral law and a transcendent moral law giver. Without this there is no morality. it has nothing to do with choice. if there was no choice then there would be none who are immoral.Your cart is before your horse and it is on fire.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

So if I swing a hammer onto your head, do you think the hammer is to blame? Or the hand of the free choosing being who wields it? Of course there would be moral norms without free choice in humans. However, humans would be incapable of moral guilt unless they have choice.

[SE7EN163]

LOL thank you! I dont know how people dont see that...

[TCMAO0]

Your original question was correct. Remember what you said. Paul was answering an objection... Like you said... If this Gospel of Jesus is true why aren't more Jews believing it. Has God failed to accomplish the purpose of Christ's death (i.e. salvation for those He died for)?

It is you who initially made it a believer vs. non-believer purpose for the passage. Then, you abandon that whole reasoning for it and just act like it only applies to nations!

Very interesting attempt at deception!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

I guess I'll just let my argument stand.

[TCMAO0]

Isn't the Exodus out of Egypt a picture of God's power to save those He intends to save based nothing but God's choice?

You use the OT to interpret the NT in this case. Yet, I doubt you do that with passages that fit your sense of fairness. Why is that? Isn't the rule of Bible Study to interpret the OT in the clearer light of the NT?

Can't Paul use a NT truth (salvation) by using an OT situation. After all was Abraham chosen only to be a nation on earth without any connection to salvation?

[TCMAO0]

You ignore the context of the previous chapter. Chapter 8 ends talking about people not nations.

Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

Rom 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

He loved us like Jacob. He didn't hate us like Esau.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

He clearly finished that discussion and returned to discuss the Jews as he had begun to in Ch 3.

[TCMAO0]

That is where you make a "huge" assumption. The whole letter is about declaring how a person is elected, justified, called, regenerated, sanctified, and glorified by the power and determination of God - not by works. Lest anyone boast about any of those things. The reason boasting is exlcuded is precisely because we didn't choose Jesus. He chose us!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yes, but having faith in God is not works. Ch. 4, 1-4 clearly rules that view out. It's either works or faith. The statement that we didn't choose him, but he chose us refers to Jn. 15, and is about him choosing his disciples. Actually Romans teaches that anyone who believes in his heart and confesses will be saved--not just some. And Rom. 8:29 explains that predestination is by foreknowledge.

[TCMAO0]

Jesus chose his disciples! You said it! If you are Jesus' disciple He chose you. All of the "pictures" of the Bible show that God chooses. He chose Abraham, King David, the prophets, John the Baptist. John 6:37 - All that the Father gives me will come. Isn't that speaking of coming to Christ? And what causes the them to come. The Father gives them to Christ. God even chose you to be born in a particular family. But, you would have us believe that in this one case it is "man's" choice.

[TCMAO0]

Foreknowledge. Did you know that the to foreknow is more than just to have a passive knowledge of a fact? When the bible uses the word "know" or foreknow (to know before time began) it speaks of an intimate personal relationship. Let me give you an example. Adam knew eve his wife (Gen 4:1). I hope you realize that this means more than that Adam knew that Eve existed. In the same way God knew his people before they were born. He didn't just know who they were. He was intimate with them.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Big difference between knowing and foreknowing. The word here is foreknowledge, not knowledge. No example in the Bible of foreknowledge being used of a relationship, for obvious reasons. That would be describing a relationship with someone who doesn't exist yet! Proginosko simply means to know beforehand.

[TCMAO0]

Wrong again... 1.Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon: PROGINOSKO: Know beforehand or choose beforehand. 2.Newman's Greek-English Dictionary: PROGINOSKO: know already; choose from the beginning, choose beforehand. 3. Louw & Nida: PROGINOSKO: Know beforehand or Chose beforehand. There exists no good quality in man to foresee.

The foreknowledge view wrongly asserts that God foresees one of several qualities in man which attract His grace.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

These are just Calvinist interpreters. What Bible passages do you show using proginosko this way?

[TCMAO0]

Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

According to the text God planned it that way. It wasn't just a general plan it was definite/determined.

According to the text, God planned it. Jesus clearly stated that He must be betrayed. Why? Because the Scriptures declared it. Not because of men. Your false god merely reacts to the plans of people by constantly adjusting His plan.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yeah, "predetermined plan" means plan. Foreknowledge means foreknowledge. If plan and foreknowledge mean the same thing, this statement would be completely redundant. You just cited a text proving the opposite of your point--proginosko does not mean plan according to this verse.

[TCMAO0]

How could the reason for the crucifixion be according to a predetermined/definite plan if the foreknowledge obtained by God was based merely observing what would happen? Is God in control of history in a determinative way? According to you he just works with what man happens to be doing. That is not the same thing having things happen according to God's plan. God is a victim of circumstance according to your understanding.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Because God's foreknowledge is actual knowledge of future things, not possible things. Therefore, he can plan based on what he knows.

Scripture reveals that God is in charge in some ways, and let's people run their own course in others. It's arrogant to say it's all one or the other. We don't know that. We only know he determines some things, and others are undetermined but foreknown with certainty.

[TCMAO0]

So you would have me worship and give glory to a god that chose to "work around" the plans of man to get mostly what He wanted but not exactly as if he would have had he been in total control?

Why should God get any glory for the things He didn't absolutely control and plan to do?

You and I worship different gods. My God is in total control. Nothing happens that He doesn't want to. And nothing He does ultimately desire fails to occur on a precise timetable.

I have utter contempt for your god!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

This is philosophical questioning based on speculation. I just go with what the Bible says.

[TCMAO0]

You have ignored the teaching of Scripture! You are a false-teacher! REPENT, or be swept in your persistent rebellion toward your Creator!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Well, I guess when you're argument breaks down, this is what you're left with.

[TCMAO0]

And it is not redundant in that He planned it and then caused it to happen by implementing that plan.

[TCMAO0]

So you admit that Romans 9 teaches God sovereign choice to have mercy on some nations and not others. Good. Now, doesn't this compare to God's mercy upon the sinner? After all, Jesus says...

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Are we not saved in the same way. Not according to anything we do but purely by God's mercy?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

yes, 'rom 9 on nations. However, Jn 15 is about Jesus' choice of the twelve to be apostles, not his choice of somne to be saved.

[KenBT214]

Can you explan Romans 11:8? Did God give Israel a spirit of slumber so they may crucify Jesus Christ that they may have a chance at salvation?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

You should listen to the next teaching, Jesus and the Jews which covers that section.

[Wwrath]

So if the texts is in obvious contradiction to your claims, you just change the meaning... you are pathetic. Read what the Bible says, not what you want it to say. Predestination is so obvious an 8 year old could tell you it was true.

[ajdesau]

...what possible concern could these christians, especially the gentile christians, have with god's choice of the nation of israel in the O.T.? if this is not dealing with salvation, which is the message of the gospel expounded upon in the book of romans, then it makes that whole chapter arbitrary and irrelevant to the gospel concerns of the people to whom paul is writing. which is what your interpretation does.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Because his choice didn't depend in any way on the goodness or badness of the Jews. People who thought their choseness was based on their virtue would consider that unfair.

[ajdesau]

so what then? are you saying that God does not do the same thing now? does he not choose people unto salvation based on his own choice and not of the goodness or badness of people? if not, then you have not well answered the question. the gentiles would not care about god's electing of nations in the OT if it had no relevance for them. unfairness would only be something they'd be concerned about if it had implications on them also.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

He wasn't talking about choosing people to salvation then in Rom. 9, and any choice he does make now is based firmly on foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:1,2).

On gentiles not caring: Anyone who reads the Bible is interested in salvation history and God's plan. I think it's absurd to suggest they wouldn't be interested in that, esp. when they had Jews and gentiles in the group.

Under your understanding, all Jews went to heaven, and all edomites went to hell. Is that right?

[ajdesau]

its a leap to take peter's apostleship as the standard for all god's decisions. god's choices are based upon his volition, in which he takes pleasure (psalm 115:3, psalm 1135:6, isaiah 46:10-11, daniel 4:35...). to say that god choices are based upon his mere foreknowledge would mean that his choices are contingent upon what he foresees man to do. but god already knows what man will do (i.e. go away from god) (psalm 14:2-3). and no, people have no inherent interest in the things of God...

[ajdesau]

what about atheists? they don't give a rip about God's plan. in fact no one cares about the things of god unless he/she is regenerate. in this case i ask again. what possible interest would the gentiles have in the saving plan of the jewish God? the gospel of god is foolishness to those who are perishing. in which case, it would only be interesting if it had relevance to the context of the book of romans, which is about the gospel.

[ajdesau]

the answer is no to your last question. it would only mean that if i agreed with your interpretation. but i don't. paul is using god's electing of jacob over esau to illustrate his sovereign election in salvation. finally your interpretation does not fit with the immediate context. paul is talking about spiritual reality (namely being a child of promise and not of flesh), but your interpretation has nothing to do with spiritual reality. is not your interpretation arbitrary to the context?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

no, I think I'm right on top of the context, and you are ignoring the citation from Mal. 1. In spite of your lengthy recital of Calvinist dogma, you never explained why Paul quoted from Malachi referring Edom and Israel. Your failure to speak to my original question suggests how lost you are on this passage. Will you answer or not?

[ajdesau]

i did answer your question. my answer is this, paul quotes malachi to support his understanding of election unto salvation. again you are using a wrong hermeneutic. you are taking paul's use of the OT and trying to then interpret the passage in light of the OT context of malachi. paul does not use it that way. romans 9 is not about edom and israel, it's about salvation. i just don't think you have rightly answered my question...

[4thstreetstudycenter]

So you're interpretation of this passage has Paul misreading the OT--that essentially destroys the doctrine of inerrancy as well as historical, grammatical hermeneutics. If Paul is allowed to misinterpret a passage, then we can too. I think you should recognize that you're wading into quicksand here, mainly because your pre-formed doctrine doesn't fit this passage.

[ajdesau]

no my interpretation has Paul interpreting the OT through the final revelation of the NT (i.e. in light of christ). the OT was incomplete and the NT completes it. thus Paul uses the OT to point to the ultimate intended meaning in view of christ, namely election unto salvation. god's choosing of nations was always intended to point to a gospel reality, and the gospel is all about salvation in christ.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The OT was incomplete, not false. This passage in Malachi is not pointing to Christ, and Paul doesn't use it that way. It pointed to national election, as this whole passage does. Your reading is not the NT interpreting the old, but your preconceived view distorting both Old and New Testaments.

[ajdesau]

this really comes down to hermeneutics man. i guess we have to agree to disagree. i disagree with your hermeneutic. in luke 24 jesus explains that the OT scriptures are about him, thus they are all pointing to him. all of redemptive history is ultimately about christ. so when paul in the NT era interprets a OT passage, he does so in light of the final revelation of jesus christ and its always concerning redemption. but you disagree with this.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Yeah, it is hermeneutics. I agree with you that the whole OT is pointing to Christ ultimately. That doesn't mean that every statement in the OT is about Christ, including this one in Mal 1. I don't believe Paul or other NT authors interpreted scripture any differently than we do, except in possible cases where they may have had something revealed (like the allegory of Isaac and Ishmael in Gal. 4). Rom. 9 isn't like that. He's discussing national election the whole way from vs. 1.

[ajdesau]

so why is it that you understand god be a sovereign being who elects nations, and not people unto salvation. does god's electing of a nation not correlate to redemption and salvation? after all, god's non-election of those other nations kept them from the revelation of god and thus condemned them to hell. what really is the ultimate difference? both correspond to being redeemed or not.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

you ask, "does god's electing of a nation not correlate to redemption and salvation?" No! I'm sure you don't believe that all Jews are saved, or that all Edomites were damned. Election to salvation is completely different than national election. The Edomites were never elected for hell. They had general revelation like everyone else, and will be "without excuse."

[ajdesau]

what do you understand "children of God" to mean? do you not believe that belonging to God as his child means that those who are his children belong to him in such a way that means they are saved and thus belong to God? (1 John 3:1)

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Definitely. That's how it's used in other passages. What do you think it means?

[ajdesau]

i believe it means the same thing. but if that's the case you would have to admit that romans 9 is talking about election unto salvation. because paul says that the the true children on God are children promise. then he uses v9-13. about election to ground his argument, in which case paul uses the example of God's election in the O.T. to support his statement concerning who is and who is not a child of God (i.e. who belongs to him in a saving way).

[4thstreetstudycenter]

The expression, "children of God" never comes up in that passage. These were children of Sarah and Rebekah. Yes, they were chosen by God, but for what? For salvation? No. For their role in his plan. You seem to be reading in theology from other sources that isn't here.

[TCMAO0]

What you miss is that God/Jesus always uses common everyday situations to teach a heavenly truth. All those parables mean nothing if merely taken literally. All the atoning sacrifices in the OT mean more than they seem. Using your logic the author of Hebrews cannot use the OT scriptures and expand on them to reveal a NT/salvation truth, either. The election of Israel as a special nation is a "picture" of what God is doing for spiritual Israel. That is why Paul says not all Israel is Israel.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Neither the birth of Isaac nor Jacob and Esau are parables. Parabolic language clearly marks non-historical parables off. These incidents were plain historical events. No, I don't think their births are pictures of spiritual Israel, but they explain why spiritual Israel gets to partake in the covenant with Abraham, established by grace and passed down to us by grace. Paul's argument is not allegorical--he's just saying these events illustrate chosing by grace.

[TCMAO0]

You are exactly right when you said it is about the covenant with Abraham. Now ask yourself, wasn't the covenant with Abraham the same as the new covenant(a saving covenant/the believer's covenant)? Since you brought it up the covenant... You now have to admit (if your honest) that this chapter does have in view salvation. Because that was the whole point about being children of Abraham (children of the promise). What is the promise? Isn't the promise to save believer's like Abraham?

[4thstreetstudycenter]

"Now ask yourself, wasn't the covenant with Abraham the same as the new covenant?"

No. It was totally different. Nothing about personal salvation--Israel included believers and non-believers. The only similarity was that getting the cov. depended only on God's gift.

[TCMAO0]

Israel included believers and non-believers. That is what is addressed in Romans 9. God never intended the nation to be saved but just the remnant (Spiritual Israel). That is why Paul says the true sons of Abraham (those truly circumcised) are spiritual Israel/the believers. Believers in what? The promise made to Abraham. What promise? To have a nation called Israel. You bet. And how is the promise ultimately fulfilled? What is every Jew's hope? Total deliverance! In a word, heaven.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Your reply is kind of tortured and hard to follow, but I'm glad to see you agree that the Abrahamic covenant is completely different than the New Covenant.

[TCMAO0]

I basically showed that the Abrahamic covenant to be about salvation. If you had ears to hear and eyes to see you would understand it.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No. You agreed that covenant was for Israel, which included people who aren't saved. So it's not about salvation.

[TCMAO0]

I agreed it was for spiritual Israel it was always about spiritual Israel. That is why not all of the nation of Israel wasn't/isn't saved. The covenant was to save a remnant. The remnant includes everyone who will believe in Jesus. That is why Paul talks about Abraham being justified by faith. Paul says Abraham was justified unto eternal salvation in the Covenant that God made with Him. The old Covenant that the author of Hebrews said is passing away is the Mosaic Covenant.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No, the original Abrahamic covenant mentions nothing about personal salvation. It sets the Jews apart for a mission, and for a special relationship with God as his chosen people. Spiritual Israel is an entity identical with the church that only began after Jesus. Yes, spiritual Israel are all saved, but Israel (under discussion here) were not.

[TCMAO0]

Wrong... The original Abrahamic covenant is about salvation that is why Paul mentions Abraham in Romans, that is why John the Baptist mentions him, and that is what the hope of every Jew was (child of Abraham). And you are not being biblical if you think that the Jewish people's covenantal hope was just national. In fact, that was the stumbling block (to eternal life) they assumed (as you do) wrongly that the whole point of the covenant was national/zionistic in nature and not heavenly.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No, they actually believed that being a child of Abe was good enough to guarantee salvation. The Rabbis taught that Abe himself would stand at the gate to hell and grab his children out of line. But Gen. 12 never mentions salvation as the text makes clear

[TCMAO0]

That is my whole point! You made it for me! They thought one thing but the covenant meant another thing. They thought being a Jew physically was what it was about. God still elected people just not the same people. God elected a nation. You agree with that much. Paul makes application that he not only elected a worldly nation but also a heavenly nation. Two separate elections. Don't look at Gen 12 look at the NT Revelation about what Gen 12 really meant. Look at Romans 9 to find out!

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Pretty wild exegesis. I'll stick with what I see in Mal. 1 etc. as showing that Rom. 9 is talking about Edom and Israel, not about saved and lost.

[TCMAO0]

If you do you will be guilty of interpreting the NT using the OT. That is a theological error of the highest order. You are a deceiver. REPENT!

[ajdesau]

"This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." - Romans 9:8 ESV

Paul is making his argument concerning who are truly the children of God (which you conceded is in reference to a saving relationship between God and his people), and then he uses the electing of jacob and esau to support his argument. it seems as thought you are not reading the text carefully (no offense intended).

[ajdesau]

if romans 9 is about god's electing of a nation and not people unto salvation, why does paul even bring it up? the entire ministry of paul's letter to the romans concerns the gospel and salvation (romans 1:1-16). if this passage has nothing to do with salvation, it is then totally arbitrary. why in the world would paul bring this up out of no where? and why would he desire to lose his own salvation because of it (rom. 9:3)? your interpretation doesn't make sense in light of the book of romans.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

No, Romans has plenty of material in it other than salvation. Rom. 6, 7, and 8 are all about spiritual growth, not salvation. Ch. 12 and following are about body life principles among believers. 9-11 are about salvation history and the interaction of the old and new covenants.

[ajdesau]

again you're exercising an irresponsible hermeneutic. if paul was merely talking about god's choice of israel, why then does he anticipate the question in verse 14 "is there injustice with god?" paul is writing this letter the church in rome (made up of jew and gentile christians) in the time after christ in which the gospel message concerns salvation. if this is about the choice of israel, why the question in verse 14?...

[4thstreetstudycenter]

Because people could easily conclude that choosing Israel over Edom wasn't fair because not based on their works. But he shows election of nations doesn't depend on works. It's a sovereign choice.

[marcsimac]

Let me say vehemently I'm (not) calvinist. I wnt no part n exalting man. What he hz, he rcvd from my "LORD". But thy r closer than any other sect n their understanding of "GOD". I'd love to hear ur reply 2 TulipAction altho he cld hv bn less sarcastic. 1 of the problems ur having as u stumble is that yr doctrine is steeped n humanism. you start 2 go really wrong by mixing your humanisms with what THE "WORD" OF "GOD" DECLARES. Me thinks u need 2 read Psalm 58 and Romans 8:20. Remain faithful.

[4thstreetstudycenter]

I am not a humanist. This is pure exposition of scripture in context. Nothing else

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Romans 9 is about predestination. But it is not about individuals. But rather two specific groups of people. God predestined the Gentile would be saved in the same way as the Jew, i.e. by grace through faith in His Son Jesus Christ. God is not willing that any should perish. And draws all men unto Himself. And those who believe become a new & 3rd group called the "Ekklessia" which means "called out" in Greek. Vessels of wrath are unbelievers. And vessels of honor are believers. It's that simple.

[TulipActionHero]

Every single Passage you read!!!

2peter3:9 "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward YOU, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.. Who is God patient towards? Is Peter writing to unbelievers? Who is he writing to? 3:1 "This is now, "BELOVED".. Beloved of who? So God is patient towards HIS SHEEP not wishing for any to perish.. "My sheep will never perish"... Hmmm, makes alot more sense.

[TulipActionHero]

Wow, EVERY Passage? Ex.33..."Is it not by Your going with us, so that we, I and Your people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?" "For you have found favor in My sight".. And your saying this doesn't have to do with Salvation? LOL! I don't recall ANYONE ever yanking one verse out of a passage and interpreting it all by itself.. Thats some great work there buddy.