Who was the Book of John Addressed to?
- Thread starter dwight92070
- Start date
@Johann @GodsGrace
He's very close in what he is saying. God hardens hearts by not showing mercy to them, and in this sense he hardens man's heart. He does not need to work in them to cause them to be harden, they have a sinful wicked heart already "very capable" of hardening itself ~ and does, to the degree God leaves man to his own sinful heart, as he did to Pharaoh in Moses' day.
He's very close in what he is saying. God hardens hearts by not showing mercy to them, and in this sense he hardens man's heart. He does not need to work in them to cause them to be harden, they have a sinful wicked heart already "very capable" of hardening itself ~ and does, to the degree God leaves man to his own sinful heart, as he did to Pharaoh in Moses' day.
GodsGrace
Active member
I don't know very much about Particular Baptists.
When we say REFORMED,,,,we mean anything that happens AFTER the reformation.
When we say CALVINIST....we mean the teachings that were also adhered to by others but of which John Calvin was the most popular/famous teacher of said doctrine which is why it got his name.
Reformed just means AFTER the reformation.
I don't understand very well why this is a problem...there really is no other way to include EVERYONE that came AFTER the reformation.....
BEFORE all belief systems included only the Western and Eastern Catholics of all rites.
AFTER the reformation it included Western, Eastern and now all Protestant denominations.
It's just a way of dividing time.
GodsGrace
Active member
I'm not going to debate this RB.
There would be too much to debate and I tend to stay with salvific issues or also OSAS and Calvinism.
There is mention of Jerusalem's destruction in Matthew.
It's a parallel teaching and regards both the events in Jerusalem in 70AD AND events at the end of time.
Regarding the rapture...it can be either or both.
As I said,,,,I know very little of eschatology and do NOT intend to spend any time learning about this.
SO....I have no idea what an Amil is.
But I DO know scripture really well and when I post something I will ALWAYS have support:
Here is Matthew 24 and the destruction of Jerusalem paralleled with the end of our time:
I always make the source available.... (there's much more BTW)....
In Matthew 24, Jesus prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem, which would take place forty years later, in 70-AD. Careful Bible students generally take one of two views on this text: 1.) Half of the chapter tells of the destruction of Jerusalem (v.1-35); while the other half tells about the final judgment at the end of time (v.36-51). Or, 2.) The entire chapter deals with the destruction of Jerusalem, with the transition to the final judgment beginning at Matthew 25:1. For my part, I believe the latter view. In this article, I want to clarify why I believe these things. Space is limited, so please read carefully as I explain why I believe all of Matthew 24 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
‹ Fishers Church of Christ
www.fishers-churchofchrist.com
It is my contention that everything spoken in Matthew 24:4-35 relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the remainder of the chapter deals with the second coming of Christ. After explaining all of the signs that would happen prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled" (Matt. 24:34). Jesus warned His followers that Jerusalem would be destroyed within their own generation.
Matthew 24 and the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was an act of God's vengeance, not Rome's
www.padfield.com
Wow! Jesus must have been describing the end of the world – right? Let’s not be too hasty in reaching that conclusion. When we look at the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, we see some differences that appear to be significant. Let’s begin by looking at the questions the disciples asked Jesus in those passages and at the answers he gave to them. Keep in mind that a basic rule of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) is that we need to interpret difficult passages in light of simpler passages on the same subject, not vice versa. Therefore, we will do well to begin with Mark’s account, written to a Roman type of Gentile audience, and then proceed to Luke’s account, written by a Gentile to a general Gentile audience. After delving into these parallel passages, we will be in a much better position to examine Matthew’s account, which is clearly the more difficult one. The difficulty lies in the fact that he uses much Jewish terminology, since Jews were the main audience he had in mind when he wrote his Gospel.
Matthew 24 – End of the World or End of an Age? | Gordon Ferguson
gordonferguson.org
Johann
Well-known member
Not answering the question that Jesus died for the sins of the world and desires salvation for everyone brother. -Pharaoh hardened his own heart at least 5 times (Ex. 8:15, 8:32, 9:34, etc.). Maybe more-hence the Imperative to read the Scriptures exegetically and not eisegetically.
From K&D:
“The hardening of Pharaoh is ascribed to God, not only in the passages just quoted, but also in Ex. 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:8; that is to say, ten times in all; and that not merely as foreknown or foretold by Jehovah, but as caused and effected by Him. In the last five passages it is invariably stated that “Jehovah hardened (...) Pharaoh’s heart.”
But it is also stated just as often, viz., ten times, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, or made it heavy or firm; e.g., in Ex. 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:35, ... “and Pharaoh’s heart was (or became) hard;” Ex. 7:14, ... “Pharaoh’s heart was heavy;” in Ex. 9:7, ...; in Ex. 8:11, 28; 9:34, ... or ...; in Ex. 13:15, ... “for Pharaoh made his heart hard.”
According to this, the hardening of Pharaoh was quite as much his own act as the decree of God. But if, in order to determine the precise relation of the divine to the human causality, we look more carefully at the two classes of expressions, we shall find that not only in connection with the first sign, by which Moses and Aaron were to show their credentials as the messengers of Jehovah, sent with the demand that he would let the people of Israel go (Ex. 7:13, 14), but after the first five penal miracles, the hardening is invariably represented as his own.
After every one of these miracles, it is stated that Pharaoh’s heart was firm, or dull, i.e., insensible to the voice of God, and unaffected by the miracles performed before his eyes, and the judgments of God suspended over him and his kingdom, and he did not listen to them (to Moses and Aaron with their demand), or let the people go (Ex. 7:22; 8:8, 15, 28; 9:7). It is not till after the sixth plague that it is stated that Jehovah made the heart of Pharaoh firm (Ex. 9:12). At the seventh the statement is repeated, that “Pharaoh made his heart heavy” (Ex. 9:34, 35); but the continued refusal on the part of Pharaoh after the eighth and ninth (Ex. 10:20, 27) and his resolution to follow the Israelites and bring them back again, are attributed to the hardening of his heart by Jehovah (Ex. 14:8, cf. vv. 4 and 17).
This hardening of his own heart was manifested first of all in the fact, that he paid no attention to the demand of Jehovah addressed to him through Moses, and would not let Israel go; and that not only at the commencement, so long as the Egyptian magicians imitated the signs performed by Moses and Aaron (though at the very first sign the rods of the magicians, when turned into serpents, were swallowed by Aaron’s, 7:12, 13), but even when the magicians themselves acknowledged, “This is the finger of God” (Ex. 8:19).
It was also continued after the fourth and fifth plagues, when a distinction was made between the Egyptians and the Israelites, and the latter were exempted from the plagues,—a fact of which the king took care to convince himself (Ex. 9:7). And it was exhibited still further in his breaking his promise, that he would let Israel go if Moses and Aaron would obtain from Jehovah the removal of the plague, and in the fact, that even after he had been obliged to confess, “I have sinned, Jehovah is the righteous one, I and my people are unrighteous” (Ex. 9:27), he sinned again, as soon as breathing-time was given him, and would not let the people go (Ex. 9:34, 35).
Thus Pharaoh would not bend his self-will to the will of God, even after he had discerned the finger of God and the omnipotence of Jehovah in the plagues suspended over him and his nation; he would not withdraw his haughty refusal, notwithstanding the fact that he was obliged to acknowledge that it was sin against Jehovah.
Looked at from this side, the hardening was a fruit of sin, a consequence of that self-will, high-mindedness, and pride which flow from sin, and a continuous and ever increasing abuse of that freedom of the will which is innate in man, and which involves the possibility of obstinate resistance to the word and chastisement of God even until death.
As the freedom of the will has its fixed limits in the unconditional dependence of the creature upon the Creator, so the sinner may resist the will of God as long as he lives. But such resistance plunges him into destruction, and is followed inevitably by death and damnation. God never allows any man to scoff at Him. Whoever will not suffer himself to be led, by the kindness and earnestness of the divine admonitions, to repentance and humble submission to the will of God, must inevitably perish, and by his destruction subserve the glory of God, and the manifestation of the holiness, righteousness, and omnipotence of Jehovah.” [Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 1, pp. 294–295). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.]
You have a problem here, see how absurd this is. Below.
The decretive (sovereign, hidden, secret) will of God – This refers to God's eternal and unchangeable decree by which everything that happens is ordained by Him. According to Calvin, nothing occurs apart from God's sovereign will, even events that involve sin or evil. This is often tied to passages like Isaiah 46:10 ("My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure") and Ephesians 1:11 ("Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will").
The preceptive (revealed, moral) will of God – This refers to God's commands and moral laws as revealed in Scripture. While God sovereignly ordains all things according to His decretive will, He has also revealed His moral standards, which humans are responsible to obey. However, people often disobey His preceptive will, as seen in Ezekiel 33:11 ("I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live").
See the absurdity @Red Baker? Listen to the video clip from Sam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 1:29 – "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
John 3:16 – "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 4:42 – "And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world."
John 12:32 – "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."
Romans 5:18 – "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
2 Corinthians 5:14-15 – "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."
1 Timothy 2:3-4 – "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
1 Timothy 2:6 – "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
Titus 2:11 – "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men."
Hebrews 2:9 – "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
2 Peter 3:9 – "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
1 John 2:2 – "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
1 John 4:14 – "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."
Let's concentrate on this^^^^^^since our Lord Jesus desires pantes, panta, pas, kosmou-to be saved
Thanks.
J.
Give me time, I do have other obligations to attend to as well. Trust me Johann, there are not one scripture that I have not seen and most likely addressed over years, so I just need time to get to all of them ~ but, be sure I will.
Oh how well do I know!
Now I'm working on answering Romans 9, you should have a post later today my time. Be patience.
Is Individual Election to Salvation Taught in Romans Nine? (part one)
by Matt Perman
Are you unsure about what to believe about predestination? Do you believe in predestination, but are looking for a greater defense of your beliefs? Or do you think that predestination is unbiblical? If one of these questions describes your thinking, I have written this article for you. To be more accurate, I have written this article to glorify God by helping all Christians to confidently acknowledge the reality of His sovereign grace. Romans 9 is a gold mine on this very important truth. And this truth is important. Jesus said that we are to live by every word that God speaks (Matthew 4:4). Paul said that all Scripture is profitable for teaching (2 Timothy 3:16). And the fact that God has devoted a whole chapter to the truth of predestination (in addition to many other passages) seems to indicate that He thinks it is especially important. As we study this chapter, we will see that it very clearly teaches that God determines who is saved (predestination, often called "unconditional election"), and that God determines who isn't saved. Please read this article with an open Bible and an open mind. It is in-depth at places and might take some time to read and ponder, so it might be very profitable to use for one of your devotional times. That should give you the freedom and time to think deeply through this article and the biblical text, in prayer before God.An attempt to escape the clear teaching of Romans 9
Someone once described the history of the interpretation of Romans 9 as an attempt to escape its clear teaching of unconditional election. A popular view today is that Paul is not talking about God's absolute sovereignty over the eternal destinies of individuals in this chapter, but simply dealing with God's sovereignty over the election of nations to earthy, historical roles. Thus, this view argues that Paul is not teaching in this chapter that God is the one who determines who will be saved and who won't be saved. The main piece of evidence for this view is that the Old Testament texts that Paul quotes in verses 7, 9, and 12 do not seem to apply to salvation in their OT context. Further, they argue, verse 13 doesn't seem to apply to individuals in its OT context.
However, we need to look not only at the context of Paul's OT quotes, but also at the whole context of Romans 9 and its surrounding chapters. The OT rarely discusses the topic of individual election, so Paul's choice of verses reflects more the limited scope of his source, not an attempt to guard against any idea of individual election. Whether or not the passages refer to predestination of individuals to salvation in their OT context, we will see that Paul uses these passages to apply this principle to his argument in Romans 9.[1] As we will see from Paul's flow of argument, the corporate interpretation does not deal adequately with the context of Romans 9. It argues against the context of Romans 9.
The overall context of Romans 9:1-24ff.
If we understand the connection between verses 1-5 and the way it relates to the context of the whole chapter, it will be very evident that throughout this chapter Paul is teaching individual, unconditional election to eternal destinies by God, not corporate election to historical roles.
The Problem:
In verses 1-5 Paul (the author) raises a problem that calls the reliability of God's word into question. The Jews are God's chosen people, having been blessed greatly and given many promises by God (vv. 4-5). As John Piper words it, Israel is the heir of promises from God which "appear to guarantee the salvation of Israel."[2] Yet, many individual Jews are facing eternal condemnation (vv. 1-3). Paul is so distressed that most of his people are accursed that he says "For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh..."(v. 3). So God has given great promises and privileges to the Jews that seem to guarantee their salvation, yet only some of them are being saved. Therefore, it seems as if God's promises to Israel have failed. This is not just a silent inference that we are drawing from the text. In the beginning of verse 6, Paul explicitly acknowledges that the problem of verses 1-5 makes it appear as if God's word has failed: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed." (v. 6).
The Solution:
In verses 6-13, Paul begins explaining and supporting the solution to this problem. He says "it is not as though the word of God has failed" and endeavors to explain why. This solution raises some difficulties of its own, which he addresses in verses 14-18. This turns out to raise even more difficulties, which Paul then addresses in verses 19-24.
The important thing to recognize at this point is that the whole chapter focuses upon addressing the problem raised in verses 1-5. Verses 6-13 give a direct answer to the problem, verses 14-18 give an answer to difficulties raised by that solution, and verses 19-24 give an answer to further questions raised by that solution. So in one way or another, the whole chapter is centered around defending Paul's solution to the problem of verses 1-5.
Therefore, we may conclude that the whole chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals. Why? For this reason: since the problem raised by verses 1-5 concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution to this problem which Paul defends in the rest of Romans 9 must also deal with the eternal destinies of individuals. Let me repeat this: since the problem of verses 1-5 concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution to the problem that Paul explains (vv.7-14) and defends against objections (vv. 14-29) therefore concerns the eternal destinies of individuals. The "corporate election to historical roles" view cannot successfully explain Paul's thread of argument: How is the problem of eternally condemned, individual Israelites in vv. 1-5 resolved if vv. 6-24ff. only refer to historical roles and not individual salvation? If verses 6-13 (and 14-29) only refer to historical roles of nations, then Paul is not at all addressing why "God's word has not failed" (v. 6), but only restating the fact that created the problem in the first place. "Those interpreters who assert that Paul is referring merely to the historical destiny of Israel and not to salvation do not account plausibly for relationship of verse 1-5 to the rest of the chapter."[3]
Understanding verses 6-13.
Now that we have a general understanding of the context of Romans 9 (and its place in the whole book of Romans if you read footnote 2) let's begin our in-depth exploration of the chapter by looking at vv. 6-13. The first thing Paul wants us to know is that God's word remains firm and successful: "But [that is, in spite of what appears from vv. 1-5] it is not as though God's word has failed." In other words, it may look as if God has failed, but He really hasn't--there is another solution to the problem. Paul then begins to give the true solution to the problem--that is, he begins telling us why God's word hasn't failed: "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel..." We know that this is the beginning of a solution to the problem because Paul begins this sentence with "for," which indicates that he is connecting it to what has gone before. In other words, the structure of verse 6 clearly indicates that Paul is not just going to state the problem and leave it at that, but rather he is beginning to give a solution to the problem: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel..."
So how exactly does Paul solve the problem of vv. 1-5? He responds that the reason "it is not as though the word of God has fallen" is because it never was God's promise to save every individual who is physically descended from the nation of Israel. Instead, God's promise was only to save the elect among the physical Israel: "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" he says (v. 6). God's saving promises are to the elect whom He has chosen within Israel (the "true Israel"), and not every physical member of the nation. Since, as we will see, all of the elect do get saved, God's word has not failed.
Paul then supports his point in verses 7-13. He points to God's choice of Isaac over Ishmael (vv. 7-9) and God's election of Jacob over Esau (vv. 10-13) in order to demonstrate an ongoing principle by which God not only established the physical nation of Israel by His electing choice, but also elects within that physical nation the individuals who are part of the "true" Israel--the recipients of eternal life. Isaac and Jacob are used as types (representatives) to apply the principle of unconditional election to all the saved. Thus, we see why "not all from Israel [that is, physical Israel] are really Israel [that is, spiritual Israel]" (v. 6) and therefore understand why God's word has not failed.
The elect, who are members of the true Israel, are "the children of promise" (v. 8). The fact that Isaac and Jacob are used here to represent all saved people--in order to illustrate that God chooses who is saved (i.e., that just as God chose Isaac and Jacob, so also he chooses everyone who is saved)--is brought out in verse 7 when he writes: "...neither [this indicates he is giving support to what he said before, in verse 6] are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: `through Isaac your descendants will be named.'" Paul is saying that the case of Isaac is an illustration of the fact that physical descent isn't enough to make one a child of God, a true descendant of Abraham.
That Paul, in verse 7, is intending to establish an ongoing principle is clear by verse 8: "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." In other words, Paul's point is: "Isaac shows that being a physical descendant of Israel is not enough for salvation. One must be a child of promise. Therefore, `they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.'" But what is a child of promise? Could it be just someone who chooses to believe--without anything to do with predestination? The things we see Paul saying throughout the whole chapter militate against this view. Further, an examination of why Isaac was a child of promise will also show that the principle that Paul is establishing through Isaac is unconditional election--not free-will. Then, when we examine the case of Jacob, we will see just how clear it is that Paul is teaching unconditional election.
But before demonstrating that a "child of promise" is one whom God chooses to believe, not merely one who believes, it is important to recognize that Paul's use of the phrases "children of promise" and "children of God" in verse 8 make it absolutely clear that he has salvation in view--not just historical roles. "Children of God" (v. 8) in Paul's writings is always used in regards to salvation (see Romans 8:16, 17, 21; Eph. 5:1; Phil. 2:15). Further, the only other place where Paul uses the phrase "children of promise" (also in v. 8) is in Galatians 4:28, where he clearly uses it salvifically. In fact, Isaac is used as an example of all saved people in this text: "And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise." Furthermore, in the Galatians text (4:21-31) Paul also applies an OT story to the topic of individual salvation, even though in their OT context the passages do not specifically deal with salvation. So Romans 9 is not the only instance where Paul uses OT texts salvifically, even if in their OT context they do not directly deal with salvation.
So it is clear that "child of promise" has something to do with salvation. But what exactly does it mean to be a child of promise? Are the children of promise those whom God chooses? Paul says that a person is designated a child of promise through God's word of promise: "...but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is a word of promise: `At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son'" (v. 9). The "word of promise" shows that the "children of promise" are those whom God unconditionally elects. Why? First, because you don't become a child of promise by believing, according to this verse. You do not become a child of promise by an act of the human will. Instead, you are a child of promise by an act of God--God's act to give you the word of promise. Second, we know that the word of promise in this verse indicates unconditional election because God was not declaring in this promise that He would simply observe the fact that Isaac would happen to be born through human choice. He was declaring that He would choose to intervene to cause Isaac to be born: "at this time I will come." Thus, the "word of promise" refers to God's sovereign choice to save, not a "free choice" of the human will to believe. Since Isaac here represents all Christians, all true believers are "children of the promise" and thus were chosen by God.
Notice also how this establishes that God's promises haven't failed. The promises of salvation do not belong to the physical nation of Israel, but they belong to those to whom God specifically speaks the "word of promise"--like He did to Isaac. You become a "child of promise" not through physical descent from Israel, but through God's unconditional choice to give you the "word of promise." Since God's promises of salvation are to the elect, the "children of promise," and they are all saved, God's word (promises) have not failed--just as verse 6 said.
In verses 10-13 Paul continues defending and explaining his solution to the problem raised in verses 1-5 by pointing to Jacob as another example of how God chooses who will be the recipients of His saving promises. "And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived of twins by one man, our father Isaac..." (v. 10). Paul is saying "Isaac isn't the only example of this. Jacob was also chosen." In verse 11 Paul makes it even clearer than he did in the case of Isaac that God's choice is unconditional: "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, `The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written, `Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" Paul explicitly says that God's choice of whom to save is made before we are born, that it is not based upon anything good or bad that we do, that it is made based upon God's will alone, and that God makes His choice for the purpose of keeping His word from failing. Wow! And notice that this doesn't just apply to God's choice of whom He will save (Jacob), but it also applies to God's choice of whom He will not save (Esau).
The OT text Paul quotes in verse 12, "The older will serve the younger" must refer in this context to the predestination of Jacob to salvation, not just historical privilege, because Paul says it was God's means of continuing His electing purpose. In the context of Paul's argument, we have seen that salvation is the electing purpose that God maintains through election--He maintains it (vv. 9, 11) in order to keep His word from falling (v. 6). Therefore God's word has not failed because God maintains His purpose through unconditional election, and unconditional election cannot fail because it depends on God, not the will of sinful man. Further, the way Paul comments on "the older will serve the younger" (v. 12) indicates that he was using it salvifically: "...just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'" (v. 13). Verse 13 begins with the words "just as it is written," thus indicating that Paul is giving further support and explanation for what he has just said in verse 12. Since the terms "loved" and "hated" in verse 13 that Paul uses to explain verse 12 are salvific, therefore verse 12 must be salvific.
Notice in verse 11 how Paul says that God's choice was "not because of works, but because of Him who calls." "Not by works" is a typical way of salvific speaking in Paul (see Romans 9:32; Eph. 2:8-9 among many others), indicating that he still has salvation in view. Comparing verse 11 with 2 Timothy 1:9 -- a great parallel where the call is clearly a saving, unconditional one -- gives further reason to believe salvation is in view.
Verse 11 is clear that God's choice of who will be saved is unconditional. It is not based upon anything in us, such as any foreknowledge of who would believe. Paul does not say that God's choice was "not because of works, but because of faith," but instead says that God's choice was "not because of works, but because of God who calls." In saying that God made His choice before the twins had done anything good or bad, He also seems to be highlighting God's unconditional choice. Paul clearly grounds God's choice of whom to save upon God, not man.
In sum, Paul has answered the problem of verses 1-5 by saying that God's word has not and cannot fail because it is not based upon the will of sinful man. It is based upon God (v. 9, 11, see also 16). Unconditional election is the means by which God maintains His purpose in Israel (v. 11), which the examples of Isaac and then Jacob illustrate. God's word has not failed because God's purpose has never been to save every individual Israelite, but only those whom He has chosen. Since the salvation of the chosen is dependent upon God, it cannot fail that they will all come to faith.
(part two)
Understanding verses 14-18.
But Paul is not out of the woods yet. The teaching of unconditional election which Paul gave to solve the problem in verses 6-13 leads him open to the objection that God is unjust: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!" In verses 15-18 Paul then explains why God is not unjust (notice that verse 15 begins with "for," indicating that Paul is giving reasons for his statement that God is not unjust). Because of this connection between verses 6-13 and 14-18, we must conclude that since verses 6-13 teach individual election to salvation, verses 14-18 also concern individual election to salvation. In other words, verses 6-13 gave the solution to a problem that involved the eternal destinies of individuals. Therefore, verses 6-13 involved the eternal destinies of individuals. Since verses 14-18 are written to answer objections to this teaching of vv. 6-13, then verses 14-18 must also be teaching individual election to eternal destinies. It would be totally opposed to Paul's flow of thought to deny this. Therefore, as we examine verses 14-18, keep in mind that they are dealing with individuals and their eternal destinies.
Before looking at how Paul answers the objection of verse 14, notice that no one ever gives this particular objection of the Arminian (those who think that election is based upon human decision). No one ever objects "If God ultimately leaves it up to humans to decide if they will be saved, then He might be unjust." So the fact that Paul anticipates the objection that God is unjust indicates that Paul is not an Arminian and we have rightly understood verses 6-13 as teaching unconditional election.
In verse 15, Paul answers why God is not unjust. He quotes Exodus 33:19 where God is in the midst of proclaiming His name to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." To the Hebrews, one's name revealed his very self, his nature. This is therefore a declaration of God's nature. But what is this saying about His nature? It is saying that it is God's nature to decide whom He will give mercy to without considering any condition found outside of Himself. In other words, God gives mercy to whoever He wants to, He consults nobody but Himself in His decision, and therefore His decision is not based upon anything that the individual does. Don't misunderstand and think that this means somebody can come to Christ for salvation and be turned away because they weren't chosen. God saves everybody who believes in Christ (John 6:37-40). But unconditional election means that God is the one who determines which people will believe and therefore God determines which people will be saved.
The truth of unconditional election is not only self-evident from the meaning of the phrase "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." It is also demonstrated by the fact that this is a special kind of Hebrew phrase called idem per idem. "Other examples of [this formula] are Ex 4:13 ("I pray, Lord, send now by the hand you will send"); Ex 16:23 ("Bake what you will bake, boil what you will boil"); ...2 Kgs 8:1 ("Sojourn where you sojourn"). By leaving the action unspecified the force of this idiom is to preserve the freedom of the subject to perform the action in whatever way he pleases....Therefore ...[God is]...stressing that there are no stipulations outside his own counsel or will which determine the disposal of his mercy and grace." [4]
Furthermore, notice the parallel between Romans 9:15 ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy") and Exodus 3:14, "I am who I am." The parallel indicates that just as God's being is unconditioned by anything outside of Himself ("I am who I am"), so also His dispensing of mercy is unconditioned by anything outside of Himself ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy"). So Romans 9:15 is a very clear statement that God chooses who is saved, apart from any condition found outside of Himself. God doesn't choose someone because they first believed in Him.
Rather, people believe in Christ because God has first chosen them.
But how does the fact that it is God's nature to be utterly free in determining who will receive mercy answer the question of why God is not unjust in unconditional election? The answer is that Paul must be understanding God's righteousness (or justice) to be His "unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory."[5] Unrighteousness would therefore be for God to act in a way that doesn't glorify Himself. So in other words, for God to be righteous He must always act in a way that displays His glory (God's "glory" is the same as God's nature--it is who God is). As we saw earlier, God's glory (who He is) consists largely in the fact that "He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy." Therefore, in v. 15 Paul is responding that God is not unjust in unconditional election because God is acting for the sake of His glory. In other words, since it is the nature of God to be sovereignly free in deciding whom to save, God is not unrighteous in unconditional election because in doing so He is simply acting in accordance with who He is and thus displaying His glory.
Another good argument that Paul is teaching individual election to salvation is that since this verse is a declaration of the nature of God, it must be referring to a general principle that extends to every act of God's grace (for God always acts in accordance with His nature)--which would include salvation.
In verse 16 Paul draws a general principle from verse 15, the same one that we have found: "So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Further evidence that this verse teaches individual election is that Paul's use of the singular in this verse (and also v. 18) would not make sense if he was not dealing with individuals.
So verses 15-16 have shown (once again) that God does choose who is saved. They also show why He is not unjust to do this. In verses 17-18, Paul shows that God also chooses who is not saved. Verse 17 says, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, `For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.'" God raised up the wicked Pharaoh and (remember the story of the Exodus?) God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that He could display His power in judging Egypt with the ten plagues, and thereby make known His greatness throughout the whole earth.
Are we correct in using the example of Pharaoh to prove that God chooses who is not saved? Yes, for this is what Paul concludes in verse 18: "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Paul is very clear: God decides who will believe and who won't believe. His choice is unconditional because He chooses and rejects "whom He desires."
Understanding verses 19-24.
Paul has now shown in verses 14-18 why God is just in unconditional election, and also given further evidence for unconditional election. But this, in turn, raises even further objection: "You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?'" (v. 19). Once again, this is an objection that is never made against Arminianism. But isn't this one of the most common objections made against the teaching of unconditional election? Since Paul anticipates this objection to his own teaching, he must be teaching unconditional election.
As should be clear, the context requires us to interpret verses 19-24 as referring to individuals and their eternal destinies--for this section was written to deal with objections raised against the teaching of unconditional election in verse 14-18. Since that section dealt with individual, eternal destinies, the section that deals with its objections must also deal with individual, eternal destinies.
How does Paul answer the objection of verse 19? First, he says that we have no right to make this objection against God: "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, `Why did you make me like this,' will it?" Paul isn't saying it is wrong to make a humble inquiry into the ways of God and ask why we are still responsible for our actions when God controls everything. He is rebuking the prideful attitude that says God shouldn't do this and the careless attitude that uses this objection to conclude that God doesn't do this.
Paul continues answering the objection in verse 21 by saying that if God is God, He has the right and ability to choose who will believe, who won't believe, and also hold people accountable for not believing: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another vessel for common use?" Notice the further teaching of unconditional election in that the saved (vessels for honorable use) and unsaved (vessels for common use) are from the same lump. Christians didn't set themselves apart by believing, and then God responded by choosing us for salvation. Instead, everybody is by nature in the same lump of sin, and God must sovereignly choose to take some out of that lump, give them faith, and save them--while He also leaves others in that lump, choosing not to save them.
But why doesn't God save everybody? Clearly if unconditional election is true He could have. So why didn't he? In verses 22-23 Paul goes right to the bottom of things and tells us why. He says that God, in order to "demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory."
First, notice how once again in this chapter Paul is teaching that God determines who will be saved. He says that God prepares "vessels of wrath for destruction." God also prepares "vessels of mercy" for glory. And Paul is clearly referring to the eternal destinies of individuals here, since that is the whole context and flow of his argument (as we have seen). Further, the words Paul uses here add more support to the fact that he is teaching about eternal destinies. His use of the word for "destruction" in regard to the vessels of destruction in v. 22 is often used to denote eternal destruction (Phil. 1:28; 3:19; 1 Tim. 6:9). His word for "glory" in regard to the vessels of mercy who were "prepared beforehand for glory" in v. 23 is also sometimes used to denote eternal life (Rom. 2:10; 8:18; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Tim. 2:10).
Second, notice that Paul actually tells us why God does this. God prepares the non-elect for destruction in order to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known in destroying them. If God did not prepare vessels of wrath, God could not fully display His wrath. But if God did not fully display His wrath, then the vessels of mercy--those who are saved--would not fully appreciate, see, or understand the riches of God's glory. It seems that in order for the elect to fully appreciate the greatness of God's mercy, they need to see and understand the wrath that God's mercy had saved them from. Therefore God prepares vessels of wrath to endure His wrath in order to highlight to the elect the riches of His mercy that couldn't otherwise be highlighted. As a result of there being "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction," Christians will have a greater appreciation of God's mercy, thank Him more deeply for their salvation, and have a wonderful and more complete delight in the riches of His glory forever.
Verse 24 identifies these vessels of glory as all Christians. The vessels of glory are those who were "called, not from among Jews only, but also among Gentiles." So Paul is clear in this verse that God's unconditional election is not simply confined to the nation of physical Israel, but is the way God works with all people -- both Jews and Gentiles. It is good news that a person doesn't need to be a member of physical Israel in order to be a member of the true Israel. Finally, notice how this verse also gives the strong impression of God selecting out certain individuals to be saved: "whom He also called, not from among the Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles."
Summary
Let us sum up the main evidence that Paul is teaching individual election to salvation throughout this whole chapter. In verses 1-5, Paul raised a problem that makes it look as if God's word has failed. But God's word has not failed, and Paul writes the rest of the chapter (vv. 6-24ff.) to explain why. Since the problem Paul is addressing concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution Paul gives must also involve the eternal destinies of individuals. Therefore, we are justified in interpreting all of the references to predestination in this chapter as applying to individuals and their eternal destinies.
The specific flow of Paul's argument is this. In verses 1-5, he raises a problem. God has made promises to Israel that appear to guarantee its salvation. But the reality is that many individual Jews are not saved. Therefore it appears as if God's word has failed. In verses 6-13, we find the solution to this problem: not everybody who is a physical Jew is a true Jew. The true Jews are the "children of promise"--those whom God chooses to save. The examples of Isaac and Jacob are used by Paul to establish this the ongoing principle by which God chooses who will be a member of the true Israel. It is to the true Jews that the guarantee of salvation belongs, not physical Jews, and God makes sure that they (the true Israel) all get saved. Therefore God's word has not failed.
But this raised the objection of verse 14, which Paul answered in verses 15-18. In the course of answering this objection, Paul taught unconditional election even more clearly. But in doing so, Paul anticipates yet another objection (v. 19) which he answers in verses 20-24. Paul's flow of argument is woven very tightly, and it cannot be denied that individual election to salvation is the main theme running throughout the whole passage. One of the many reasons for this is that verses 6-24ff. are all centered around addressing, in one way or another, the problem from verses 1-5 of individual Jews being eternally lost. Therefore corporate election to historical role interpretation argues against the context of Romans 9:1-29ff.
With such clear evidence that this chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals, let us quickly review the many places in this passage where Paul teaches unconditional election--that is, predestination. First, Isaac was chosen unconditionally by God. All Christians are children of promise like him, and therefore all Christians are chosen unconditionally (vv. 7-9). Second, the case of Jacob and Esau illustrates that God chooses who is saved before they are born, before they have done anything good or bad, that His decision is not based upon any foreknowledge of their faith or works, and that God's choice cannot fail because it is dependant upon His own will, not our will (vv. 10-13). Third, God "will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" (v. 15). Fourth, election does not depend upon human will or effort, but God (v. 16). Fifth, the example of Pharaoh illustrates that God chooses who will not be saved (v. 17). Sixth, this means that "God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (v. 18). Because of this, God's will is always done (v. 19). Seventh, God exercises His sovereign rights as creator to make vessels of honorable use and vessels of common use (v. 21). Eight, these vessels are chosen out of the same lump, and therefore had not distinguished themselves on their own (such as by believing) (v. 21). Ninth, verse 22 again reiterates the point that God prepares vessels of wrath, and (tenth) verse 23 reiterates the point that God prepares vessels of mercy. Eleventh, God selects these vessels of mercy by His own will out of Jews and Gentiles (v. 24). And because of Paul's flow of argument, there is no denying that this all applies to individual election to salvation. Verses 25-29 also teach predestination in several ways, but we have ended our study here.
Conclusion
The applications of the teaching in Romans 9 are huge. I will leave it to the reader to work them out in his or her mind. But in closing I wish to give one of these many wonderful applications: God's promises are certain to be fulfilled because they depend ultimately upon God's action. God takes action in human history to make sure His promises will be fulfilled. This doesn't mean that we don't need to meet the conditions of His promises to benefit from them, and it doesn't mean that the lost don't need to believe in order to be saved. It means that behind these acts of faith is the sovereign hand of God, causing His children to continue trusting Him more and more deeply, and causing unbelievers to respond to the gospel and be saved. As Christians, this should give us great hope in evangelism, trust in God for our futures, and security of our salvation.
Romans 9 is a gold mine. I encourage you to pray for God's guidance and continue studying it deeply.
Understanding verses 14-18.
But Paul is not out of the woods yet. The teaching of unconditional election which Paul gave to solve the problem in verses 6-13 leads him open to the objection that God is unjust: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!" In verses 15-18 Paul then explains why God is not unjust (notice that verse 15 begins with "for," indicating that Paul is giving reasons for his statement that God is not unjust). Because of this connection between verses 6-13 and 14-18, we must conclude that since verses 6-13 teach individual election to salvation, verses 14-18 also concern individual election to salvation. In other words, verses 6-13 gave the solution to a problem that involved the eternal destinies of individuals. Therefore, verses 6-13 involved the eternal destinies of individuals. Since verses 14-18 are written to answer objections to this teaching of vv. 6-13, then verses 14-18 must also be teaching individual election to eternal destinies. It would be totally opposed to Paul's flow of thought to deny this. Therefore, as we examine verses 14-18, keep in mind that they are dealing with individuals and their eternal destinies.
Before looking at how Paul answers the objection of verse 14, notice that no one ever gives this particular objection of the Arminian (those who think that election is based upon human decision). No one ever objects "If God ultimately leaves it up to humans to decide if they will be saved, then He might be unjust." So the fact that Paul anticipates the objection that God is unjust indicates that Paul is not an Arminian and we have rightly understood verses 6-13 as teaching unconditional election.
In verse 15, Paul answers why God is not unjust. He quotes Exodus 33:19 where God is in the midst of proclaiming His name to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." To the Hebrews, one's name revealed his very self, his nature. This is therefore a declaration of God's nature. But what is this saying about His nature? It is saying that it is God's nature to decide whom He will give mercy to without considering any condition found outside of Himself. In other words, God gives mercy to whoever He wants to, He consults nobody but Himself in His decision, and therefore His decision is not based upon anything that the individual does. Don't misunderstand and think that this means somebody can come to Christ for salvation and be turned away because they weren't chosen. God saves everybody who believes in Christ (John 6:37-40). But unconditional election means that God is the one who determines which people will believe and therefore God determines which people will be saved.
The truth of unconditional election is not only self-evident from the meaning of the phrase "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." It is also demonstrated by the fact that this is a special kind of Hebrew phrase called idem per idem. "Other examples of [this formula] are Ex 4:13 ("I pray, Lord, send now by the hand you will send"); Ex 16:23 ("Bake what you will bake, boil what you will boil"); ...2 Kgs 8:1 ("Sojourn where you sojourn"). By leaving the action unspecified the force of this idiom is to preserve the freedom of the subject to perform the action in whatever way he pleases....Therefore ...[God is]...stressing that there are no stipulations outside his own counsel or will which determine the disposal of his mercy and grace." [4]
Furthermore, notice the parallel between Romans 9:15 ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy") and Exodus 3:14, "I am who I am." The parallel indicates that just as God's being is unconditioned by anything outside of Himself ("I am who I am"), so also His dispensing of mercy is unconditioned by anything outside of Himself ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy"). So Romans 9:15 is a very clear statement that God chooses who is saved, apart from any condition found outside of Himself. God doesn't choose someone because they first believed in Him.
Rather, people believe in Christ because God has first chosen them.
But how does the fact that it is God's nature to be utterly free in determining who will receive mercy answer the question of why God is not unjust in unconditional election? The answer is that Paul must be understanding God's righteousness (or justice) to be His "unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory."[5] Unrighteousness would therefore be for God to act in a way that doesn't glorify Himself. So in other words, for God to be righteous He must always act in a way that displays His glory (God's "glory" is the same as God's nature--it is who God is). As we saw earlier, God's glory (who He is) consists largely in the fact that "He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy." Therefore, in v. 15 Paul is responding that God is not unjust in unconditional election because God is acting for the sake of His glory. In other words, since it is the nature of God to be sovereignly free in deciding whom to save, God is not unrighteous in unconditional election because in doing so He is simply acting in accordance with who He is and thus displaying His glory.
Another good argument that Paul is teaching individual election to salvation is that since this verse is a declaration of the nature of God, it must be referring to a general principle that extends to every act of God's grace (for God always acts in accordance with His nature)--which would include salvation.
In verse 16 Paul draws a general principle from verse 15, the same one that we have found: "So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." Further evidence that this verse teaches individual election is that Paul's use of the singular in this verse (and also v. 18) would not make sense if he was not dealing with individuals.
So verses 15-16 have shown (once again) that God does choose who is saved. They also show why He is not unjust to do this. In verses 17-18, Paul shows that God also chooses who is not saved. Verse 17 says, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, `For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.'" God raised up the wicked Pharaoh and (remember the story of the Exodus?) God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that He could display His power in judging Egypt with the ten plagues, and thereby make known His greatness throughout the whole earth.
Are we correct in using the example of Pharaoh to prove that God chooses who is not saved? Yes, for this is what Paul concludes in verse 18: "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Paul is very clear: God decides who will believe and who won't believe. His choice is unconditional because He chooses and rejects "whom He desires."
Understanding verses 19-24.
Paul has now shown in verses 14-18 why God is just in unconditional election, and also given further evidence for unconditional election. But this, in turn, raises even further objection: "You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?'" (v. 19). Once again, this is an objection that is never made against Arminianism. But isn't this one of the most common objections made against the teaching of unconditional election? Since Paul anticipates this objection to his own teaching, he must be teaching unconditional election.
As should be clear, the context requires us to interpret verses 19-24 as referring to individuals and their eternal destinies--for this section was written to deal with objections raised against the teaching of unconditional election in verse 14-18. Since that section dealt with individual, eternal destinies, the section that deals with its objections must also deal with individual, eternal destinies.
How does Paul answer the objection of verse 19? First, he says that we have no right to make this objection against God: "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, `Why did you make me like this,' will it?" Paul isn't saying it is wrong to make a humble inquiry into the ways of God and ask why we are still responsible for our actions when God controls everything. He is rebuking the prideful attitude that says God shouldn't do this and the careless attitude that uses this objection to conclude that God doesn't do this.
Paul continues answering the objection in verse 21 by saying that if God is God, He has the right and ability to choose who will believe, who won't believe, and also hold people accountable for not believing: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another vessel for common use?" Notice the further teaching of unconditional election in that the saved (vessels for honorable use) and unsaved (vessels for common use) are from the same lump. Christians didn't set themselves apart by believing, and then God responded by choosing us for salvation. Instead, everybody is by nature in the same lump of sin, and God must sovereignly choose to take some out of that lump, give them faith, and save them--while He also leaves others in that lump, choosing not to save them.
But why doesn't God save everybody? Clearly if unconditional election is true He could have. So why didn't he? In verses 22-23 Paul goes right to the bottom of things and tells us why. He says that God, in order to "demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory."
First, notice how once again in this chapter Paul is teaching that God determines who will be saved. He says that God prepares "vessels of wrath for destruction." God also prepares "vessels of mercy" for glory. And Paul is clearly referring to the eternal destinies of individuals here, since that is the whole context and flow of his argument (as we have seen). Further, the words Paul uses here add more support to the fact that he is teaching about eternal destinies. His use of the word for "destruction" in regard to the vessels of destruction in v. 22 is often used to denote eternal destruction (Phil. 1:28; 3:19; 1 Tim. 6:9). His word for "glory" in regard to the vessels of mercy who were "prepared beforehand for glory" in v. 23 is also sometimes used to denote eternal life (Rom. 2:10; 8:18; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Tim. 2:10).
Second, notice that Paul actually tells us why God does this. God prepares the non-elect for destruction in order to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known in destroying them. If God did not prepare vessels of wrath, God could not fully display His wrath. But if God did not fully display His wrath, then the vessels of mercy--those who are saved--would not fully appreciate, see, or understand the riches of God's glory. It seems that in order for the elect to fully appreciate the greatness of God's mercy, they need to see and understand the wrath that God's mercy had saved them from. Therefore God prepares vessels of wrath to endure His wrath in order to highlight to the elect the riches of His mercy that couldn't otherwise be highlighted. As a result of there being "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction," Christians will have a greater appreciation of God's mercy, thank Him more deeply for their salvation, and have a wonderful and more complete delight in the riches of His glory forever.
Verse 24 identifies these vessels of glory as all Christians. The vessels of glory are those who were "called, not from among Jews only, but also among Gentiles." So Paul is clear in this verse that God's unconditional election is not simply confined to the nation of physical Israel, but is the way God works with all people -- both Jews and Gentiles. It is good news that a person doesn't need to be a member of physical Israel in order to be a member of the true Israel. Finally, notice how this verse also gives the strong impression of God selecting out certain individuals to be saved: "whom He also called, not from among the Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles."
Summary
Let us sum up the main evidence that Paul is teaching individual election to salvation throughout this whole chapter. In verses 1-5, Paul raised a problem that makes it look as if God's word has failed. But God's word has not failed, and Paul writes the rest of the chapter (vv. 6-24ff.) to explain why. Since the problem Paul is addressing concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution Paul gives must also involve the eternal destinies of individuals. Therefore, we are justified in interpreting all of the references to predestination in this chapter as applying to individuals and their eternal destinies.
The specific flow of Paul's argument is this. In verses 1-5, he raises a problem. God has made promises to Israel that appear to guarantee its salvation. But the reality is that many individual Jews are not saved. Therefore it appears as if God's word has failed. In verses 6-13, we find the solution to this problem: not everybody who is a physical Jew is a true Jew. The true Jews are the "children of promise"--those whom God chooses to save. The examples of Isaac and Jacob are used by Paul to establish this the ongoing principle by which God chooses who will be a member of the true Israel. It is to the true Jews that the guarantee of salvation belongs, not physical Jews, and God makes sure that they (the true Israel) all get saved. Therefore God's word has not failed.
But this raised the objection of verse 14, which Paul answered in verses 15-18. In the course of answering this objection, Paul taught unconditional election even more clearly. But in doing so, Paul anticipates yet another objection (v. 19) which he answers in verses 20-24. Paul's flow of argument is woven very tightly, and it cannot be denied that individual election to salvation is the main theme running throughout the whole passage. One of the many reasons for this is that verses 6-24ff. are all centered around addressing, in one way or another, the problem from verses 1-5 of individual Jews being eternally lost. Therefore corporate election to historical role interpretation argues against the context of Romans 9:1-29ff.
With such clear evidence that this chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals, let us quickly review the many places in this passage where Paul teaches unconditional election--that is, predestination. First, Isaac was chosen unconditionally by God. All Christians are children of promise like him, and therefore all Christians are chosen unconditionally (vv. 7-9). Second, the case of Jacob and Esau illustrates that God chooses who is saved before they are born, before they have done anything good or bad, that His decision is not based upon any foreknowledge of their faith or works, and that God's choice cannot fail because it is dependant upon His own will, not our will (vv. 10-13). Third, God "will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" (v. 15). Fourth, election does not depend upon human will or effort, but God (v. 16). Fifth, the example of Pharaoh illustrates that God chooses who will not be saved (v. 17). Sixth, this means that "God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (v. 18). Because of this, God's will is always done (v. 19). Seventh, God exercises His sovereign rights as creator to make vessels of honorable use and vessels of common use (v. 21). Eight, these vessels are chosen out of the same lump, and therefore had not distinguished themselves on their own (such as by believing) (v. 21). Ninth, verse 22 again reiterates the point that God prepares vessels of wrath, and (tenth) verse 23 reiterates the point that God prepares vessels of mercy. Eleventh, God selects these vessels of mercy by His own will out of Jews and Gentiles (v. 24). And because of Paul's flow of argument, there is no denying that this all applies to individual election to salvation. Verses 25-29 also teach predestination in several ways, but we have ended our study here.
Conclusion
The applications of the teaching in Romans 9 are huge. I will leave it to the reader to work them out in his or her mind. But in closing I wish to give one of these many wonderful applications: God's promises are certain to be fulfilled because they depend ultimately upon God's action. God takes action in human history to make sure His promises will be fulfilled. This doesn't mean that we don't need to meet the conditions of His promises to benefit from them, and it doesn't mean that the lost don't need to believe in order to be saved. It means that behind these acts of faith is the sovereign hand of God, causing His children to continue trusting Him more and more deeply, and causing unbelievers to respond to the gospel and be saved. As Christians, this should give us great hope in evangelism, trust in God for our futures, and security of our salvation.
Romans 9 is a gold mine. I encourage you to pray for God's guidance and continue studying it deeply.
Johann
Well-known member
You might consider saving us the time and effort--you are avoiding questions and verses, in context of course.
Matt Perman is a Reformed (Calvinist) theologian and writer known for his work in theology and productivity from a biblical perspective. He has been affiliated with organizations such as Desiring God, which is closely associated with John Piper and the Reformed tradition.
His article "Is Individual Election to Salvation Taught in Romans Nine?" reflects a Calvinist interpretation of election, arguing for unconditional election in line with Reformed soteriology. Given his theological background and affiliations, Perman approaches Romans 9 from a Calvinistic viewpoint, emphasizing God's sovereignty in choosing individuals for salvation apart from human will or effort.
Back to the Scriptures without bias @Red Baker.
Is Individual Election to Salvation Taught in Romans Nine? | Monergism
by Matt PermanAre you unsure about what to believe about predestination? Do you believe in predestination, but are looking for a greater defense of your
www.monergism.com
Thanks.
J.
Last edited:
TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY
Well-known member
A real needful reminder to us all my friend . I would not HEED JOHN piper at all . that may sound mean , harsh .
BUT its just the truth . Bible time for us all .
@Johann @GodsGrace
Gleanings in Romans nine ~ by D. W. "Red" Baker..... with a purpose of showing the true Holy Ghost given meaning of election in these scriptures... for service, or, election by His grace to inherit eternal life according to God's oath and promises of grace, which are totally unconditional on their part ~ conditional only by "two immutable acts of God"...his holy unchanging oath and promises which is is impossible for God to lie.
Johann, I decided to just glean through here, keep from making another booklet which I'm known for; I also decided to just start a new work on this chapter different from what I have posted a few times over for the last fifteen years or so on other forums.
"That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" Without going into the pro's and con's of what Paul meant here, which seems at first reading that he had a love for his kinsmen above what the law demanded, by willing to be made a curse for them that they may have what he knows to be the truth, which he had. For sure, Paul had great heaviness and a continual sorrow for his brethren, his flesh and blood kinsmen. Yet, he will show us, that he understood why some of his own kinsmen were not children of God and some would never be, even though as a nation they were the most favored nation upon the face of the earth at one time, but no longer, and never shall be again.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect"~ Israel's rejecting of Christ and them being no longer the medium where God is known and worshipped as His people, is perfectly understood by Paul as he pondered the word of God and sought his comfort from which brought some peace and comfort to his sorrowful and heavy heart.
He knew that the word of God had not fail, according to God's eternal purposes in Christ from being fulfilled, all was right on course, moving to it desire end, were all that were chosen in Christ, according to the purpose and will of God, shall indeed reach their eternal home, supported by God's two immutable acts, his holy oath and promises in Christ to his seed, secured by His Son fulfilling the duty of being their surety...which he did so perfectly, (blessed be his name) that the pleasure of the LORD prospered in his hand.
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"~ Now Johann, you have a burden of proof laying heavy upon your shoulder to prove that Paul even had on his mind, that election under consideration in Romans nine has reference to service, and not to salvation from sin and condemnation, a burden that I know is too heavy for you to escape from, without you, dear sir, wresting God's testimony that is before us, in an attempt make it support your bias agenda ~ and bias against God it is.
What does it mean to be the Israel of God? Need help Johann? It is to be part of the very elect, not just in name only! Jesus used this phrase:
Are all of the children of God's oath and promises of grace were made to, through their head Jesus Christ, the Very Elect of God through whom God's carried out his eternal purposes which he purposed within the council of His own will, which will will proper just as God willed it to do. Do you believe this? I do. 100%.
Just as it was in Moses' day, Christ's day, even so now.... "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"~ name only, profession only, means nothing, show me the proof and generally Johann, it is seen in knowing the truth ~with godly fruits supporting one's confession ~ cannot have one, without the other ~but, I do agree knowledge is something that takes time to perfect, and never will it be in this lifetime, not even from the best of God's saints. Neither are our fruit perfect, always could be better and must increase.
So far, Johann, your burden is increasing, for these scriptures at the beginning of Romans nine is without doubt limited to Salvation from sin and condemnation, being a vessel of MERCY oppose from being a vessel of God's wrath. I'm trying to keep this as short as possible.
"but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Johann, stop, think, and humble yourself under God's mighty hand and accept the truths taht are clearly being taught to us by the apostle Paul. These eleven words are words of SALVATION, not service! It truly should concern you if you fear God, (I trust you truly do) that you will not allow yourself to hear what the scriptures are clearly saying.
Many Israelites did not believe, yet Paul took comfort for himself knowing that God's word has not fail to accomplish its purposes, that all of the children of God's promise are counted for the promised seed beginning at Genesis 12 and can be seen all through the scripture who they are, and we shall see two of very soon. Salvation, Johann, not service my friend.
The Lord be with you Johann, and fulfilled Ephesians 1:17-19 in your life, is my prayer for you.
Coming back to continue...RB
Gleanings in Romans nine ~ by D. W. "Red" Baker..... with a purpose of showing the true Holy Ghost given meaning of election in these scriptures... for service, or, election by His grace to inherit eternal life according to God's oath and promises of grace, which are totally unconditional on their part ~ conditional only by "two immutable acts of God"...his holy unchanging oath and promises which is is impossible for God to lie.
Johann, I decided to just glean through here, keep from making another booklet which I'm known for; I also decided to just start a new work on this chapter different from what I have posted a few times over for the last fifteen years or so on other forums.
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,"~ I can follow a man of God like Paul, what a blessed joy to know, what is written and spoken by men of God, they did so as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, though what may seem to be private thoughts, yet we know they spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and spoke out of love for those they spoke to, which is the example for all of us to follow. They held back not word that they knew their hearers needed to know, even when they may had thoughts that they would not be received as the truths of the word of God, which made them to work even harder to convinced them of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ.
"That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" Without going into the pro's and con's of what Paul meant here, which seems at first reading that he had a love for his kinsmen above what the law demanded, by willing to be made a curse for them that they may have what he knows to be the truth, which he had. For sure, Paul had great heaviness and a continual sorrow for his brethren, his flesh and blood kinsmen. Yet, he will show us, that he understood why some of his own kinsmen were not children of God and some would never be, even though as a nation they were the most favored nation upon the face of the earth at one time, but no longer, and never shall be again.
Johann, beginning at this verse, it is so clear, Paul is not addressing Israel as a nation being used as a earthy, historical role, as far as being a medium through which God is made known to world, when actually they were commanded to not even go unto them and learn their way! You know the scriptures ~ that's why they were forbidden from eating certain meats in the OT, not that the meats themselves were unclean and made a person sinful, but they were given as a type of Gentiles themselves being unholy that the Israelites should not learn their ways ~ Acts 10 shows the truth behind forbidden meats of the OT. Enough on that, but Israel for sure was no medium for God's service to be used only for this purpose and this purpose according to you and others helps to explain what election meant in these scriptures before us, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect"~ Israel's rejecting of Christ and them being no longer the medium where God is known and worshipped as His people, is perfectly understood by Paul as he pondered the word of God and sought his comfort from which brought some peace and comfort to his sorrowful and heavy heart.
He knew that the word of God had not fail, according to God's eternal purposes in Christ from being fulfilled, all was right on course, moving to it desire end, were all that were chosen in Christ, according to the purpose and will of God, shall indeed reach their eternal home, supported by God's two immutable acts, his holy oath and promises in Christ to his seed, secured by His Son fulfilling the duty of being their surety...which he did so perfectly, (blessed be his name) that the pleasure of the LORD prospered in his hand.
Isaiah 53:10
“Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"~ Now Johann, you have a burden of proof laying heavy upon your shoulder to prove that Paul even had on his mind, that election under consideration in Romans nine has reference to service, and not to salvation from sin and condemnation, a burden that I know is too heavy for you to escape from, without you, dear sir, wresting God's testimony that is before us, in an attempt make it support your bias agenda ~ and bias against God it is.
What does it mean to be the Israel of God? Need help Johann? It is to be part of the very elect, not just in name only! Jesus used this phrase:
Matthew 24:24
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”Are all of the children of God's oath and promises of grace were made to, through their head Jesus Christ, the Very Elect of God through whom God's carried out his eternal purposes which he purposed within the council of His own will, which will will proper just as God willed it to do. Do you believe this? I do. 100%.
Isaiah 42:1
“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.”Just as it was in Moses' day, Christ's day, even so now.... "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"~ name only, profession only, means nothing, show me the proof and generally Johann, it is seen in knowing the truth ~with godly fruits supporting one's confession ~ cannot have one, without the other ~but, I do agree knowledge is something that takes time to perfect, and never will it be in this lifetime, not even from the best of God's saints. Neither are our fruit perfect, always could be better and must increase.
2nd Timothy 3:7
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”Being a fleshly Israelite means nothing more than you are a kinsmen of Abraham, that does not give one a right to eternal life as we all know, nor, does it give them a right to boast of being God's people, for they are not, just because they can traced their genealogy to Abraham. What makes a person children of the Living God? One must be a child of God's oath and promises, if not, then that person is not a child of God.
So far, Johann, your burden is increasing, for these scriptures at the beginning of Romans nine is without doubt limited to Salvation from sin and condemnation, being a vessel of MERCY oppose from being a vessel of God's wrath. I'm trying to keep this as short as possible.
"but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Johann, stop, think, and humble yourself under God's mighty hand and accept the truths taht are clearly being taught to us by the apostle Paul. These eleven words are words of SALVATION, not service! It truly should concern you if you fear God, (I trust you truly do) that you will not allow yourself to hear what the scriptures are clearly saying.
Many Israelites did not believe, yet Paul took comfort for himself knowing that God's word has not fail to accomplish its purposes, that all of the children of God's promise are counted for the promised seed beginning at Genesis 12 and can be seen all through the scripture who they are, and we shall see two of very soon. Salvation, Johann, not service my friend.
The Lord be with you Johann, and fulfilled Ephesians 1:17-19 in your life, is my prayer for you.
Coming back to continue...RB
Well now Johann, who do you think you are sending articles to me from? Calvinist,? No, your friends from the school of Armenians.
Okay, I agree we both need to stay with our own thoughts which I had already purpose to do, just in the meantime, I sent that to you as something to read, but, I do not need to do so, I can take care of myself and defend my own teachings.
GodsGrace
Active member
HI Red
I'm so happy that you tagged me in.
Romans 9 is the go-to chapter for the Calvinist leaning persons.
I say CLAVINIST-LEANING so you don't get upset with titles, but I'll be referring to calvinism in this conversation.
Yes. Paul states that he had a love for his kinsmen...which indeed is what Romans 9 is about....THE JEWS.
I'll have to say here that it seems that Paul loved the Jews more than God did because HE was willing to take curses for them but God,
OTOH,,,,as calvinism teaches....passed over many and thus damned them to hell forever.
Does this show the same love for mankind that Paul had for his kinsmen?
No.
The calvinist God is not a God of love.
And yet we're told that GOD IS LOVE. 1 John 4:8
Interesting Red.
You claim Paul was not speaking to a nation but then went on to state what God demanded FROM THAT NATION...in order to keep them separate from other cultures.
You even stated "that the israelites should not learn their ways".
Indeed. And I agree.
God ELECTED the nation of Israel to reveal Himself to the world.
The other near-by nations were worshipping different and may gods.
God wanted to reveal Himself as the ONE AND ONLY GOD and so removed Abraham from
UR and indeed Israel came to be after much history.
In Romans 9, Paul is speaking of a nation.
How can we know?
Paul starts out Romans 9 addressing it to the saints in Rome...all the saints...
Jew and gentile. Verse 1:16 TO THE JEW FIRST AND ASO TO THE GREEK.
Almost midnight here.
To be cont'd.
Johann
Well-known member
Still open for discussion?
ROMANS 9-11'S RELATIONSHIP TO ROMANS 1-8
There have been two ways of understanding this literary unit's relationship to Romans 1-8.
It is a totally separate topic, a theological parenthesis
There is a drastic contrast and lack of logical connection between Rom. 8:39 and 9:1.
It is directly related to the historical tension in the church at Rome between believing Jews and believing Gentiles. It was possibly related to the growing Gentile leadership of the Church because many Jewish people had left Rome after Caesar's decree to stop Jewish rituals.
There was misunderstanding about Paul's preaching concerning Israel (and the Law) and his apostleship to the Gentiles (offer of free grace), therefore, he deals with this topic in this section. Paul wanted this church to help him on a mission to Spain.
It is the climax and logical conclusion of Paul's presentation of the gospel.
Paul concludes Romans 8 with the promise of "no separation from the love of God." What about the unbelief of the covenant people (possibly related to the conflict within the Roman church between believing Jewish and Gentile leadership)?
Romans 9-11 answers the paradox of the gospel concerning Israel's unbelief!
Paul has been addressing this very issue (i.e., the preeminence of Israel) all through the letter (cf. Rom. 1:3,16; 2-3; 4).
Paul claims that God is true to His Word. What about His OT word to Israel? Are all those promises null and void? See note at Rom. 9:6.
SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE MOSAIC LAW
SPECIAL TOPIC: MOSAIC LAW AND THE CHRISTIAN
There are several possible ways to outline this literary unit
by Paul's use of a supposed objector (diatribe). Paul knew how Jewish people would respond to his gospel presentation, so he puts their objections in rhetorical questions.
Rom. 9:6
Rom. 9:14
Rom. 9:19
Rom. 9:30
Rom. 11:1
Rom. 11:11
Romans 9-11 forms a literary unit (chapter and verse divisions are not inspired and were added in the Middle Ages). It must be interpreted together as a whole. However, there are at least three major subject divisions.
Rom. 9:1-29 (focusing on God's sovereignty)
Rom. 9:30-10:21 (focusing on human responsibility)
Rom. 11:1-32 (God's inclusive, eternal, redemptive purpose)
This section is as much a cry from the heart (cf. Rom. 9:3; 11:22,33) as a presentation from the mind (logical outline). Its passion reminds one of God's heart breaking over rebellious Israel as in Hosea 11:1-4,8-9.
In many ways the pain and goodness of the Law in Romans 7 are paralleled in Romans 9-10. In both cases Paul's heart was breaking over the irony of a law from God that brought death instead of life!
Paul's use of over 25 OT quotes in Romans 9-11 shows his desire to illustrate the paradox of Israel from OT sources, as he did in Romans 4, not just current experience. The majority of Abraham's physical descendants had rejected God, even in the past (cf. Acts 7; Nehemiah 9).
This text, like Eph. 1:3-14, deals with the eternal purposes of God for the redemption of all humanity.
At first it seems to describe God choosing some individuals and rejecting other individuals (supralapsarian Calvinism), however, I think the focus is not on individuals, but on God's eternal plan of redemption (cf. Gen. 3:15; 12:3; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:28; and 13:29). The individuals in chapters 9 and 11 represent people groups, NOT individuals.
The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, "The New Testament," edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Raymond E. Brown, says:
"It is important to realize from the outset that Paul's perspective is corporate; he is not discussing the responsibility of individuals. If he seems to bring up the question of divine predestination, this has nothing to do with the predestination of individuals to glory" (p. 318).
SPECIAL TOPIC: YHWH'S ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN
A helpful YouTube video entitled, "How and Why Romans 9-11 Makes Me Arminian," by Dr. Matt. O'Reilly, is a very helpful overview of this literary unit. It contrasts corporate election with individual election.
CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS TO CHAPTER 9
What a drastic change of attitude occurs between Romans 8 and Romans 9.
Romans 9 is one of the strongest NT passages on God's sovereignty (i.e., the others being, Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-14), while Romans 10 states human's freewill clearly and repeatedly
"everyone," Rom. 9:4
"whosoever," Rom. 9:11,13---This you refuse to consider @Red Baker
"all" Rom. 9:12 (twice)
Paul never tries to reconcile this theological tension. They are both true!
Most Bible doctrines are presented in paradoxical or dialectical pairs. Most systems of theology are logical, but proof-text only one aspect of biblical truth.
Both Augustinianism and Calvinism versus semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism have elements of truth and error.
Biblical tension between doctrines is preferable to a proof-texted, dogmatic, rational, theological system that forces the Bible onto a preconceived interpretive grid!
SPECIAL TOPIC: EASTERN LITERATURE
Romans 9:30-33 is a summary of Romans 9 and the theme of Romans 10.
Notice how much Paul uses OT texts to establish his argument. This presupposes a Jewish readership in Rome.
Rom. 9:7 ‒ Gen. 21:12
Rom. 9:9 ‒ Gen. 18:10,14
Rom. 9:12 ‒ Gen. 25:32
Rom. 9:13 ‒ Mal. 1:2-3
Rom. 9:15 ‒ Exod. 33:19
Rom. 9:17 ‒ Exod. 9:16
Rom. 9:25 ‒ Hosea 2:23
Rom. 9:26 ‒ Hosea 1:10
Rom. 9:27 ‒ Isa. 10:22
Rom. 9:28 ‒ Isa. 10:23
Rom. 9:29 ‒ Isa. 1:9
Rom. 9:33 ‒ Isa. 28:16 and 8:14
There are many more OT quotes in Romans 10 and 11!
You come across as hyper-deterministic brother and I'm deeply indebted to this humble preacher Bob Utley.
This for the readers benefit.
Johann.
TOTHALORDBEALLGLORY
Well-known member
If those who deny the diety of Christ are waiting for the day of the LORD
wherein all shall stand before HIM , to say to those who preached HE is alpah and omega , first and last ,that we were in error ,
MY ADVICE to them is DO not wait for that day , you wont be proved right and we will not be proved wrong .
YOU GONNA SEE HE WHO SAID i am alpha and omega , the first and the last , AND buddies , ITS TOO LATE ON THAT DAY , YE CALLED HIM
the LIAR .
JUST a real friendly but super needful reminder . man i shudder in total fear
for those who called CHRIST a liar . Total fear . For they called HE who said i am alpha and omega , first and the last ,
was dead but now alive , A LIAR . Callling GOD a liar , NOT GOOD . truly its NOT GOOD .
wherein all shall stand before HIM , to say to those who preached HE is alpah and omega , first and last ,that we were in error ,
MY ADVICE to them is DO not wait for that day , you wont be proved right and we will not be proved wrong .
YOU GONNA SEE HE WHO SAID i am alpha and omega , the first and the last , AND buddies , ITS TOO LATE ON THAT DAY , YE CALLED HIM
the LIAR .
JUST a real friendly but super needful reminder . man i shudder in total fear
for those who called CHRIST a liar . Total fear . For they called HE who said i am alpha and omega , first and the last ,
was dead but now alive , A LIAR . Callling GOD a liar , NOT GOOD . truly its NOT GOOD .
