Romans 9
Last April I started a series on Romans 9. Here is what I've written on it so far.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
I hope to write more on Romans 9 some time soon.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
I hope to write more on Romans 9 some time soon.
posted by Daniel | 4:01 PM
17 Comments:
Daniel,
I hope you and your wife had a merry Christmas!
I certainly do not have the time to discuss Romans 9 in any great detail, but I did look over your thoughts on the chapter and had a few things come to mind. I fail to see your interpretation in the text itself. The common argument that Paul is discussing certain ‘blessings’ and such when he discusses the twins fails to be shown from the text itself. It’s clear that Paul is talking about salvation by his mention that his wish was to be accursed in order that Israel might be saved. Accursed, saved, individually (not nationally): please explain how the context suddenly changes. Furthermore, can you please show where in scripture the word ‘election’ or ‘elect’ does not mean unto salvation? 2 Thess 2:13 comes to mind. Nevertheless, the context of Romans 9 also refers to ‘vessels of wrath prepared for destruction’, which certainly comes in the same thought as the entire chapter, and is certainly is referring to eternal damnation.
But anyway, the doctrine of pre-destination does not rely on this passage of scripture. Jesus Himself taught all 5 points of Calvinism in John 6, but a deeper explanation of these doctrines does come from Romans 9. I would suggest that an exegesis of John 6 clearly leads to these doctrines, and that a sound and consistent exegesis leading to another interpretation has never been produced. John 6 is irrefutable on this subject.
Anyway, if I interpret you correctly, you are saying that God had the same love and the same mercy for both Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh. That seems to be the heart issue on this interpretation of Romans 9.
SDG
Nathan,
I hope that you and your wife had a Merry Christmas.
From your comments, I'm not sure that you read my comments on Romans 9 very thoroughly.
You write, "The common argument that Paul is discussing certain ‘blessings’ and such when he discusses the twins fails to be shown from the text itself."
I said in the 2nd section that the tension in this text is found in God's blessings vs. Israel's unbelief. These promised blessings seemed to implied the salvation of Israel. And yet, at the present time, the majority of Jews had rejected the gospel.
You write, "Nevertheless, the context of Romans 9 also refers to ‘vessels of wrath prepared for destruction’, which certainly comes in the same thought as the entire chapter, and is certainly is referring to eternal damnation."
I agree.
You write, "Anyway, if I interpret you correctly, you are saying that God had the same love and the same mercy for both Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh. That seems to be the heart issue on this interpretation of Romans 9."
I never said anything of the sort.
Please take the time to reread my explanation of Romans 9 and try to understand what I actually believe about the passage.
Magnum said: “It will not do, therefore, to imagine that the drawing Jesus has in mind here is a universal drawing of all persons toward salvation.”
So then, when Jesus says ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day” He was only referring to this specific occasion and not to all who ever come to faith in Christ?
Magnum said: “In this question posed by Jesus we discover the key principle: rejecting God’s first offerings of truth will utterly block further illumination. God will not offer more truth or manifest his full glory (the eternal son) while light at hand is being spurned.”
So again, when Jesus says ‘No one can come to Me’ He actually means that everyone CAN come to Him, if only they don’t reject the first offer?
Magnum said: “The Jewish opponents’ inability to come to Jesus did not lie, then, in the hidden, eternal plan of God but in their own track record…”
“All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me…” is not the eternal plan of God but is rooted in the will of man?
So, taking everything you said as a whole about this passage, you are implying that ‘NO man can come to Me’ actually means ‘EVERY man can come to Me’ correct? (if only they do not reject the first offer)
Magnum said: “Nathan: The vessels of wrath in this context and throughout Romans and even Jeremiah have always referred to Israel. Knowing that, would you suggest that all of Israel is damned to hell?
In this context ‘vessels of wrath’ is clearly referring to individuals, not nations, as the example of Pharaoh shows. (Furthermore, arent nations made up of individuals anyway?)
Magnum said: “The thought that Paul is discussing God's decision to save only some is completely absurd and fails recognize a broader context. Paul is explaining the covenantal promises of God. It's the Gospel in full effect! Predestination is therefore by no means exclusive but radically inclusive in that God wants all men to be saved! 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9.”
No, it pays attention to the immediate context, not just dismissing the passage as a ‘broader context’ issue. You cannot exegete this passage, and actually stay in the passage, and come to any other interpretation except that Paul is yes, talking about Israel, but in this discussion of Israel he broadens the subject to refer to individual salvation as well. Furthermore, does Proverbs 16:4 fall in line with the 1 Tim and 2 Peter passages you quoted? (By the way, the 2 Peter quote is taken out of context, Peter is talking about the elect… “longsuffering towards US”. We must decide who the US is before we try to determine the meaning of this passage)
Daniel, I guess it would be safe to say that I do not completely understand your arguments on Romans 9.
The vessels of wrath in Rom. 9 must refer to Israel. Check out v.1-5. That's the context.
The problem that Paul wrestles with here is that unbelieving Israel, the recipient of God's many blessings, stands accursed, having rejected their Messiah.
However, I agree with Nathan that destruction Paul refers to means eternal condemnation. The word "wrath" used here must have the same sense as it does in Romans 1:18.
As far as John 6 goes, that's a different issue. As tempted as I am to chase rabbits and red herrings, I had better not. Maybe I'll address it later. I do think that it needs to be read synthetically in light of the whole gospel, esp. ch 5. The comments in ch. 5 about the relationship of the Jews to the Father bring much to the light in way of understanding the text.
Nathan: Here's a quick thought. In John, Christ is merely identifying himself with the Father. His point was that those who [truly] know the Father will know Christ too, especially when they are confronted by Him. In the section, He (Christ) was punking Jews, pointing out how the reason they don't know Him is because they never knew the Father to begin with. Those that know the Father will know Christ too. The passage is Christological!
There is absolutely nothing in Romans 9 to suggest that Paul is discussing individual salvation. Magnum is solid!
John 6 is NOT describing how one gets saved? Wow, I am at a loss for words. So then, when Jesus says "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sents Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." What does 'raise up' mean? What does 'at the last day' mean? These things do not refer to salvation, ressurection, judgment, and deliverance from sin? Please explain where you get that notion out of the text itself. Let me further explain:
37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Does verse 40 refer to eternal salvation? Um, yes it does. So then, where in the context does Jesus SWITCH from verse 37 -not talking about eternal, individual salvation, to verse 40 which DOES refer to individual eternal salvation? In addition, the SAME context is followed through verse 44. Where does Jesus change the meaning by the time v44 rolls around?
Along the same lines, please explain to me how one can 'come to Christ' in light of (not just John 6) Romans 8:
And Daniel (and anonymous), I have already shown from the text of Romans 9 that Paul is referring to individual salvation, neither of you have shown from the text that he isnt. Please address my previous comments instead of just writing them off as untrue without showing from the text where my error lies. If I am wrong, I must be convinced by the Word of God:
"Accursed, saved, individually (not nationally): please explain how the context suddenly changes. Furthermore, can you please show where in scripture the word ‘election’ or ‘elect’ does not mean unto salvation? 2 Thess 2:13 comes to mind. Nevertheless, the context of Romans 9 also refers to ‘vessels of wrath prepared for destruction’, which certainly comes in the same thought as the entire chapter, and is certainly is referring to eternal damnation."
I enjoy the 'iron sharpening iron' with this dialogue, and I by no means intend to force my views upon you, I pray we can learn some from each other. But I am afraid that if the philosphical arguments continue to be used instead of exegesis of scripture, I will step out of the way. We must be convinced by scripture along.
SDG
Whoops, forget the Romans 8 comment. That is another subject for another posting.
SDG
See if you can be a little more rude James White...
"And Daniel (and anonymous), I have already shown from the text of Romans 9 that Paul is referring to individual salvation, neither of you have shown from the text that he isnt. Please address my previous comments instead of just writing them off as untrue without showing from the text where my error lies. If I am wrong, I must be convinced by the Word of God"
I must have missed where you explained this. I see no textual support. Only bold and baseless assertions.
Anonymous,
Who are you? Please identify yourself.
Nathan,
You write, "I have already shown from the text of Romans 9 that Paul is referring to individual salvation, neither of you have shown from the text that he isnt."
I think that salvation is in the picture here in Romans 9. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense what Paul is so worried about. The majority of Jews (i.e. different individuals) are accursed, having rejected Christ. I think that is clear from the text.
Anonymous,
The James White comment was a little uncalled for. Personally, I don't like White very much. However, let's try to treat each other with respect and curiosity.
Nathan,
I'm sorry. I hope that you didn't misunderstand my last comment. I meant to say that I don't like "James White" very much.
No Daniel, I didn’t take it that way at all. :)
I do however, think it is best that I step out of this discussion. I have been debating for the last few days about whether I should respond to all of this or not, and I think that it’s best that I don’t. Let me briefly explain:
Interpretation assertions by Magnum (as I understand them; I pray that I do not misrepresent):
•‘No man can come to Me’ refers only to the Jews at that certain time.
•Then, ‘no man can come to Me’ refers only to those who’ve already rejected Jesus (or those particular Jews who had already rejected Him).
•But then, the meaning of ‘no man can come to Me’ does not matter because Justification is not specifically spelled out in this verse. That is, ‘come to Me’ does not deal with how one is to [get] saved.
•‘All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out’ does NOT refer to a eternal plan of salvation from God.
•Justification by faith is NOT described in John 6:40 (and thus the rest of the passage) - “…everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
•Correction, since the *main* emphasis in John chapter 6 is Christology, then we must discount everything else Christ says on the basis that these ‘other things’ are not His *main* point of the dialogue.
•‘Vessels of wrath’ refer to Israel only, even though Pharaoh and Esau, specific individuals, are described as such.
•Somehow Romans 8 ‘the mind set on the flesh is unable to submit to the law’ does *not* refer to all men who are in the unregenerate state. (Even though the passage describes the ‘carnally minded’ as opposed to the ‘spiritually minded’, and only the ‘spiritually minded’ can please God -with the understanding that the Spirit is necessary to please God, and without the Spirit we are not in Christ (verse 9)).
•2 Peter 3:9 is again taken out of context, despite my clear rebuttal of Magnum’s interpretation of it. (Forgive me for not taking the time to deal with 1 Tim 2:4; though I must conclude that you take that out of context as well.)
•Romans chapter 3 apparently doesn’t mean that ‘no one does good, no one seeks after God’, but only that certain people, most likely Jews who are trying to obey the Torah, are who Paul is describing.
•1 Cor 2:14 apparently describes the believer who is dominated by the flesh, this despite the fact that Paul clarifies that statement as ‘the natural man does this…but we have the mind of Christ’ (my paraphrase of course). (Also, these interpretations do not consider the several other passages that teach us that man is dead in his sin, such as Eph 2:1; Jer 13:23 etc).
I cannot continue in a discussion where the Word of God is played with in such a fast and loose manner. I’ve enjoyed it! But there cannot be any ‘iron sharpening iron’ if we cannot correct each other with the specific words of the text. I think a much bigger issue in this discussion is how we interpret the word of God. What is our method? Philosophy? Squeezing our beliefs into a passage no matter what the actual wording says? No, the real issue in this discussion is the exegesis of scripture. And unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like there is any desire to stay in the text itself in order to explain its meaning. That is why I feel it is best I step out.
As far as free will goes, I will leave you with a great quote by Luther:
Martin Luther said:
"If [natural] Man does possess a ‘free-will,’ and this will can freely choose to follow the commands of God, “repent,” and “come to faith in Christ,” then this will is the most important part of Man, as it is decisive in his eternal salvation. If the most important part of Man is sound, then it does not need Christ as its Redeemer. If it does not need Christ, then Man triumphs above Christ in a glory greater than His; for Man takes care of his most valuable part, whereas Christ only cares for his less valuable part. And then the sovereignty of Satan will prove nothing, for Satan will rule Man’s less valuable part only, and Man will rule Satan instead in respect to his better part! So, those who believe in ‘free-will’ exalt Man above both God and Satan, making Man to be god of god and lord of lords!"
SDG
This is why I'm glad I remained anonymous in this discussion. Nathan - your post lacks integrity; it's hard to take someone as intellectually serious who says "I'm out" and then proceeds with a laundry list of blastings. As far as I can tell, everyone here is reading the same Bible. This vaunted "I read the Bible" defense often offered by ill-equipped reformed campers is prideful and lacks and force. I could just as easily accuse you of forcing your presupposed philosophies into the text. You offered no exegesis of the Word itself, and completely misconstrued Magnum's comments. In summary, your argument amounts to no more than childishly saying "No! You're wrong!"
Thank you gentlemen for proving my point. I have not used ad-hominem, and I have not gotten personal. But apparently you guys say I ‘lack integrity’, I’m ‘ill-equipped’, ‘prideful’, and ‘childish’. Thanks anonymous for showing me that you have no concern for Christ-honoring speech and behavior. TW, thanks for attacking me personally (again) as well. The true nature of your heart continues to reveal itself. At least Magnum had the integrity to say he disagrees with my arguments instead of attacking me personally.
But please note how many times I pointed to specific wording in the text, and juxtapose that with how many times others gave wild ‘story lines’ in a desperate attempt to get around the specific wording.
As far as the real arguments go, if I’m so ‘off base’ and full of proof texts, why haven’t you guys shown me my error? I have attempted to show from the specific wording where John 6, 2 Peter, and other passages have been maligned, but none of my affirmations have been challenged by any specific words in the text. If I am so far off base, please, somebody show me where I am wrong instead of just saying I’m wrong but supplying no real evidence.
John 6:37 is dicussing the eternal plan of the Father in salvation -is it not?
John 6:40 affirms the above point -does it not?
John 6:44 says that it is impossible for one to 'come to Christ', that is, come in faith and repentance unless Christ draws -does it not?
6:44b says that Christ will raise those who are drawn -does it not?
Please, I beg for someone to show me from the text how these assertions are wrong. And no, we cannot not take philosophy and wild contexts as a viable answer.
Please! Someone prove me wrong!
Guys,
The subject of this posting was Romans 9. We kinda got off subject. John 6 is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. If the post dealt with John 6, then we can argue over John 6. Although I'm tempted to post my thoughts on John 6 here, it's off the subject.
There are passages that give both Calvinists and Arminians trouble. Our goal in reading Scripture is not to win a debate, but to know Christ and Him crucified, right?
Thanks for the discussion,
Daniel
Post a Comment
<< Home