ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View
- Thread starter Jaltus
- Start date
Arminian
New member
Jaltus,
No, I think that your solution is totally Biblical. I think you're beening too philosophical, so you're doubting your solution. It's important to think what a Jew would mean by such a comment, so we would have to look at the OT to understand. If you remember, I provided a quote from Dunn a week or so ago on this topic. I'll go get his full list and Cranfield's and then post my comments. "Those who love God" doesn't mean "those who love God ONCE," as even the Greek suggests.
No, I think that your solution is totally Biblical. I think you're beening too philosophical, so you're doubting your solution. It's important to think what a Jew would mean by such a comment, so we would have to look at the OT to understand. If you remember, I provided a quote from Dunn a week or so ago on this topic. I'll go get his full list and Cranfield's and then post my comments. "Those who love God" doesn't mean "those who love God ONCE," as even the Greek suggests.
Last edited:
geoff
New member
Jaltus,
I would have to say that voluntarily giving up salvation could be an option...
I think the verse is fairly difficult for arminians, and OV'ers alike... which is one reason I cant get in to the system, lol, my mind just rejects it.
arminian:
I dont know that you can actually prove this, you certainly havent to me... the main reason being that any group is made up of individuals. Individuals are circumcised, individuals are called - you cant escape it. Again, I agree, Paul is talking about a group, but the group isnt a nameless multitude, each one is called by name.
I would have to say that voluntarily giving up salvation could be an option...
I think the verse is fairly difficult for arminians, and OV'ers alike... which is one reason I cant get in to the system, lol, my mind just rejects it.
arminian:
I dont know that you can actually prove this, you certainly havent to me... the main reason being that any group is made up of individuals. Individuals are circumcised, individuals are called - you cant escape it. Again, I agree, Paul is talking about a group, but the group isnt a nameless multitude, each one is called by name.
I think my rejoinder may be enough, but I want to look into it more. however, I think 28-30 give OV a tough time since there is the concept of foreknowing who will be saved (an essential point against the OV). My concept may get the OV past 28, but not 29-30.
Jake,
I am not a big Dunn fan. He tends to write theology instead of exegesis. Cranfield is supposed to be very good, but I do not have the $90 for him yet.
Jake,
I am not a big Dunn fan. He tends to write theology instead of exegesis. Cranfield is supposed to be very good, but I do not have the $90 for him yet.
Arminian
New member
Hi Jaltus,
I'm not a fan of either, though I do have a respect for both for different reasons. The list I'm looking for (not the explanation)may be in Cranfield's shorter commentary ($12, which is in my car), but I know it's in the longer one. I'll find out later. Otherwise I'll just use a concordance and skip the other ancient Jewish writings.
My point, however, was the same as Dunn's concerning Jewish peity. Those who love God are those who obey him. The idea isn't that they obeyed him ONCE in the past. OF course, my point has been made, so the list is just supporting data.
So, God's predestined (according to the promise made to Abraham) people are the Jews, according to Paul's oppostion. The election and calling is theirs (notice the Paul agrees!), but it is in the Elect One, according to Paul. But his opposion argues that the predestined people (according to the promise...) are joined via circumcision. The issue doesn't involve the knowledge or predestination of individuals, or the issue of circumcision would be silly.
I'm not a fan of either, though I do have a respect for both for different reasons. The list I'm looking for (not the explanation)may be in Cranfield's shorter commentary ($12, which is in my car), but I know it's in the longer one. I'll find out later. Otherwise I'll just use a concordance and skip the other ancient Jewish writings.
My point, however, was the same as Dunn's concerning Jewish peity. Those who love God are those who obey him. The idea isn't that they obeyed him ONCE in the past. OF course, my point has been made, so the list is just supporting data.
So, God's predestined (according to the promise made to Abraham) people are the Jews, according to Paul's oppostion. The election and calling is theirs (notice the Paul agrees!), but it is in the Elect One, according to Paul. But his opposion argues that the predestined people (according to the promise...) are joined via circumcision. The issue doesn't involve the knowledge or predestination of individuals, or the issue of circumcision would be silly.
Last edited:
geoff
New member
1013,
No, The British did... you just helped.
We're not talking about a 'group effort' here... we are talking about the individual soldiers who join the army. They are either drafted, or voluntary, either way they are individuals. And in this case, uncle Sam foreknows them, and predestines them to become soldiers. Thus, foreknowing they will become soldiers, he calls them, trains them, and in the end, gives them a medal and a pension.
In this case, some soldiers may go AWOL (yay Jaltus), which proves they were never really soldiers in the first place, they were just 'soldier groupies' heheh.
Either way, the OV is damaged by this verse.
Arminian, The issue of circumcision isnt made silly, in fact, if Paul isnt talking about individuals AND the group, then the whole passage is insensible. YOu can not talk about any group specifically in this manner, without bringing to mind the individuals who make up the group. And yes, the Hebrew thinks wholistically... I agree... just how holistic do you think they think though? I expect you believe the human being is divisible (its off topic so I dont wanna argue about it... it only gives an idea of how we apply this wholistic thinking of the Hebrew mind when it gets in the way of our preconceptions).
No, The British did... you just helped.
We're not talking about a 'group effort' here... we are talking about the individual soldiers who join the army. They are either drafted, or voluntary, either way they are individuals. And in this case, uncle Sam foreknows them, and predestines them to become soldiers. Thus, foreknowing they will become soldiers, he calls them, trains them, and in the end, gives them a medal and a pension.
In this case, some soldiers may go AWOL (yay Jaltus), which proves they were never really soldiers in the first place, they were just 'soldier groupies' heheh.
Either way, the OV is damaged by this verse.
Arminian, The issue of circumcision isnt made silly, in fact, if Paul isnt talking about individuals AND the group, then the whole passage is insensible. YOu can not talk about any group specifically in this manner, without bringing to mind the individuals who make up the group. And yes, the Hebrew thinks wholistically... I agree... just how holistic do you think they think though? I expect you believe the human being is divisible (its off topic so I dont wanna argue about it... it only gives an idea of how we apply this wholistic thinking of the Hebrew mind when it gets in the way of our preconceptions).
Arminian
New member
geoff,
Yes, the issue of circumcision would be silly if Paul were talking about individual salvation because the penis would not play a role in God's decision before the world began. If, however, Paul is speaking corporately, then he is arguing for the identity of God's chosen people (Jews vs Christains) and the means of joining that chosen people (circumcision vs faith).
On the contrary, we speak like that all the time. If I speak of the Bill of Rights being what the founding fathers ordained for the protection of Americans, I certainly don't have any specific individuals in mind. The Bill of Rights applies to whomever becomes and American, and it does not apply to someone who leaves America and becomes a citizen of another country.
Or let's say that God chose the Jews or the Scouts for salvation based upon a promise made to Abraham. Wouldn't that be a good argument for becoming a Jew or a Scout? Wouldn't the issue of HOW to become a Jew or Scout then be the focus of attention? But if the issue were of individualism, circumcision wouldn't be an issue. If God has chosen an individual to be a Jew or a Scout, who cares about his penis!!! (how many times can I say "penis" without getting in trouble??):shocked:
Yes, the issue of circumcision would be silly if Paul were talking about individual salvation because the penis would not play a role in God's decision before the world began. If, however, Paul is speaking corporately, then he is arguing for the identity of God's chosen people (Jews vs Christains) and the means of joining that chosen people (circumcision vs faith).
On the contrary, we speak like that all the time. If I speak of the Bill of Rights being what the founding fathers ordained for the protection of Americans, I certainly don't have any specific individuals in mind. The Bill of Rights applies to whomever becomes and American, and it does not apply to someone who leaves America and becomes a citizen of another country.
Or let's say that God chose the Jews or the Scouts for salvation based upon a promise made to Abraham. Wouldn't that be a good argument for becoming a Jew or a Scout? Wouldn't the issue of HOW to become a Jew or Scout then be the focus of attention? But if the issue were of individualism, circumcision wouldn't be an issue. If God has chosen an individual to be a Jew or a Scout, who cares about his penis!!! (how many times can I say "penis" without getting in trouble??):shocked:
Last edited:
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
I did? I'm 23 years old Geoff. I wasn't even alive. unless you meant "you" plural? that'd be alright because we did help the british.
How many times can you put it into proper context.
Now, How many times can 1013 let arminian get away with riske posting and not get into trouble for it?
geoff
New member
1013,
No, not you, America the nation, made up of individuals, sent their army, a group made up of individuals, to help the british, a nation made up of individuals. Americans died in WWII, does that mean ALL Americans died in WWII? No. It means INDIVIDUALS died. This is a stupid line of argument because it doesnt prove anything, any more than the claim that Paul is soley talking about a group can not be proved.
It is illogical to make that distinction. A group can not be differentiated from those individuals who make it up.
If I say, JW's came to my door. Do I mean that ALL JW's came to my door? No, I mean those specific individuals who are JW's who came to my door. There was 5 of them, so there was a group, and they were individuals. Capeche?
No, not you, America the nation, made up of individuals, sent their army, a group made up of individuals, to help the british, a nation made up of individuals. Americans died in WWII, does that mean ALL Americans died in WWII? No. It means INDIVIDUALS died. This is a stupid line of argument because it doesnt prove anything, any more than the claim that Paul is soley talking about a group can not be proved.
It is illogical to make that distinction. A group can not be differentiated from those individuals who make it up.
If I say, JW's came to my door. Do I mean that ALL JW's came to my door? No, I mean those specific individuals who are JW's who came to my door. There was 5 of them, so there was a group, and they were individuals. Capeche?
Arminian
New member
All I can say is that if election of individuals instead of a race and a people is involved, saying that the promise was to the "Seed" and not to the "seeds" is a horrible way to make the point!!
Also, reinforcing the argument by saying that only those who DO have faith are the children of Abraham and heirs to the promise blows the individualism theory right out of the water. Aren't the heirs to the promise the elect individauls who have yet to believe? Not according to Paul. They are the people made up of only those who have entered. That people fulfill the promise made to Abraham. In fact those individuals who turn back will be cut off.
1030,
Now you've given me two projects? Don't invest too much expectatoin in NP just yet, but do enjoy the reading. I'll fill you in....
Also, reinforcing the argument by saying that only those who DO have faith are the children of Abraham and heirs to the promise blows the individualism theory right out of the water. Aren't the heirs to the promise the elect individauls who have yet to believe? Not according to Paul. They are the people made up of only those who have entered. That people fulfill the promise made to Abraham. In fact those individuals who turn back will be cut off.
1030,
Now you've given me two projects? Don't invest too much expectatoin in NP just yet, but do enjoy the reading. I'll fill you in....
Last edited:
Arminian
New member
Hi Jaltus,
Thanks for your patience. I'm running so far behind on so many things that I'm forced to give a shorter reply to your question than I had planned. I am, however, getting more interested in this topic than I expected. This may become another one of my 14-pagers!
I quoted Dunn earlier:
Dunn is referring to the Jewish contextual backdrop for Paul's comments in Romans 8:28.
Let's examine Deuteronomy 7 and use it as an example:
For you are a chosen people, holy to the Lord you God; the LORD you God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
The corporate nature of the comment is difficult to miss. God chose a people, not individuals, to be his own possession. Individuals must enter the covenant to become part of that chosen people and possession.
The people are invited to enter the covenant and maintain it. Those who live by this covenant are those who love him:
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generation, and requites to their face those who hate him, by destroying them; he will not be slack with him who hates him
"Those who love him" must continue to love him:
You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statuses and the ordinances with is command you this day. And because you hearken to these ordinances and keep them and do them the LORD you God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love he swore to your fathers to keep.
This is an interesting series of comments that gives us insight into what Paul was thinking when he borrowed the words and imagery. The covenant God was intent on keeping was the one made to the "forefathers" (not to the members of the covenant) concerning a people that could be joined ("if you obey these ordinances, I will be your God and you will be my people") or left ("because you hearken to these ordinances and keep them and do them the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant" ). Paul speaks of this corporate election and the promise to the patriarchs as the rationale behind his letter to the Romans (15:8-9):
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy...
The promise to the patriarchs was that God would give them a new chosen people that would incorporate the Gentiles. That's why the issue of circumcision comes up. If there is another chosen people, HOW do we become members? Circumcision? Faith?
So now it's clearer why Paul brings Abraham into the debate. The "promise" of election was made to him, so he is the ultimate patriarch being spoken of. So who are the elect people being spoken of? The Jews? The people of faith?
Well, the answers to the questions are obvious now (to those who are not Reformed). The elect and predestined people, according to the promise made to the patriarchs, are the royal priesthood known as Christians. There's no such thing as an elect unbeliever, because, by definition, that person has not yet entered the covenant and is not among "those who love God."
So to answer your question, "those who love God" are most certainly blessed by him. They MUST continue to love God, as Moses has said (cf. Romans 11:20).
Jaltus, please challenge me if I'm not clear enough. 13 more pages to go.
Thanks for your patience. I'm running so far behind on so many things that I'm forced to give a shorter reply to your question than I had planned. I am, however, getting more interested in this topic than I expected. This may become another one of my 14-pagers!
I quoted Dunn earlier:
Dunn is referring to the Jewish contextual backdrop for Paul's comments in Romans 8:28.
Let's examine Deuteronomy 7 and use it as an example:
For you are a chosen people, holy to the Lord you God; the LORD you God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
The corporate nature of the comment is difficult to miss. God chose a people, not individuals, to be his own possession. Individuals must enter the covenant to become part of that chosen people and possession.
The people are invited to enter the covenant and maintain it. Those who live by this covenant are those who love him:
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generation, and requites to their face those who hate him, by destroying them; he will not be slack with him who hates him
"Those who love him" must continue to love him:
You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statuses and the ordinances with is command you this day. And because you hearken to these ordinances and keep them and do them the LORD you God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love he swore to your fathers to keep.
This is an interesting series of comments that gives us insight into what Paul was thinking when he borrowed the words and imagery. The covenant God was intent on keeping was the one made to the "forefathers" (not to the members of the covenant) concerning a people that could be joined ("if you obey these ordinances, I will be your God and you will be my people") or left ("because you hearken to these ordinances and keep them and do them the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant" ). Paul speaks of this corporate election and the promise to the patriarchs as the rationale behind his letter to the Romans (15:8-9):
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy...
The promise to the patriarchs was that God would give them a new chosen people that would incorporate the Gentiles. That's why the issue of circumcision comes up. If there is another chosen people, HOW do we become members? Circumcision? Faith?
So now it's clearer why Paul brings Abraham into the debate. The "promise" of election was made to him, so he is the ultimate patriarch being spoken of. So who are the elect people being spoken of? The Jews? The people of faith?
Well, the answers to the questions are obvious now (to those who are not Reformed). The elect and predestined people, according to the promise made to the patriarchs, are the royal priesthood known as Christians. There's no such thing as an elect unbeliever, because, by definition, that person has not yet entered the covenant and is not among "those who love God."
So to answer your question, "those who love God" are most certainly blessed by him. They MUST continue to love God, as Moses has said (cf. Romans 11:20).
Jaltus, please challenge me if I'm not clear enough. 13 more pages to go.
Last edited:
Arminian
New member
I just looked at Jack Cottrell's commentary on Romans. I guess I do like what at least one Arminain, Cottrell, says about the passage:
"How much is included in all things"? This must be determined by the context, which specificaly deals with the ills and adversities of our presnet earthly life, "our present sufferings" (v. 18; see vv. 33-39)." This includes trials and miseries suffered as the consequence of other' sins, but not necessarily our own (Godet, 322)
Hot dang! Where's my Godet?!
"How much is included in all things"? This must be determined by the context, which specificaly deals with the ills and adversities of our presnet earthly life, "our present sufferings" (v. 18; see vv. 33-39)." This includes trials and miseries suffered as the consequence of other' sins, but not necessarily our own (Godet, 322)
Hot dang! Where's my Godet?!