Is Calvinism Right?

[swanca99]

Thanks, Clete. I'm getting closer to understanding your interpretation of this passage.

The alligators have been snappin' strong at work tonight, and tomorrow night will probably be just as bad, but I'll try to jump back in over the weekend (I get three nights off...unless they call me in for overtime...again...).

 

[swanca99]

Well, I'm back...

First, let me clarify my question #1 from post 99.

In 9:6-7, Paul makes the assertion, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isacc shall thy seed be called."

He uses Scripture, to support his assertion about Isaac, in verses 8 and 9.

I see him going on, in the following verses, to support his assertion, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." I think this is one of his primary purposes at least through 9:29, and perhaps this is still at least one of his purposes all the way though 11:10. Do you see that as well?

And I have two additional questions:

#4 - Could Isaiah 29:16 and/or Isaiah 45:9 be considered as "first mentions" of the potter/clay symbol, rather than (or perhaps in addition to?) Jeremiah 18, and if so, would that change anything in your interpretation of this passage (i.e., Romans 9-11)?

#5 - In Romans 11, who (or what) is the "remnant according to the election of grace" in verse 5 and "the election" in verse 7?

As I stated in my last post, I'm understanding your interpretation of this passage more and more as you answer my questions. Hopefully other readers are benefitting as well.

Yours because His,
Swanca

 

[Clete]

For now, just one answer to one question. I'll get to the rest as time permits.

Originally posted by swanca99
#4 - Could Isaiah 29:16 and/or Isaiah 45:9 be considered as "first mentions" of the potter/clay symbol, rather than (or perhaps in addition to?) Jeremiah 18, and if so, would that change anything in your interpretation of this passage (i.e., Romans 9-11)?

Well, yes and no.

Isaiah 49 definitely not because it is not the first time it is mentioned but the passage in Isaiah 29 could be yes although the passage in Jeremiah is much clearer and explained in much more detail.

The passage in Isaiah 29 is defiantly talking about Israel.
If we take a look at verse 1 we see clearly a reference to Jerusalem

• 1 "Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt!
  Add year to year;
  Let feasts come around.

And the last portion of verse 8 clearly refers to Israel as well...

• "So the multitude of all the nations shall be,
  Who fight against Mount Zion."

And if we look at the whole section of Scripture in which verse 16 occurs, it is also clearly not talking about individuals but a nation (i.e. Israel)...

• 13Therefore the Lord said:
  "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
  And honor Me with their lips,
  But have removed their hearts far from Me,
  And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
  14Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
  Among this people,
  A marvelous work and a wonder;
  For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
  And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
  15Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from the LORD,
  And their works are in the dark;
  They say, "Who sees us?" and, "Who knows us?"
  16Surely you have things turned around!
  Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;
  For shall the thing made say of him who made it,
  "He did not make me"?
  Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it,
  "He has no understanding"?

So, can this be used as a foundational "first mention" of the potter and the clay? Yes, it certainly can, but as I said. The passage in Jeremiah makes more sense in the context of a discussion on Romans 9 because first of all Jeremiah doesn't teach something different than the passage in Isaiah and it makes the point in a much clearer, more detailed way, and secondly because the two chapters are making the exact same point.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Congratulations on being the only participant on this forum who has ever noticed that Jeremiah is not the very first time that 'the Potter and the clay' is mentioned in Scripture. I've wondered for some time whether anyone would ever ask this question. So far as I am aware, you are the first! I'm impressed! :BRAVO:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by swanca99
#5 - In Romans 11, who (or what) is the "remnant according to the election of grace" in verse 5 and "the election" in verse 7?

There is no short answer to this question that wouldn't open a gigantic can of worms that has little or nothing to do with Romans 9.

I refer you to this article by Pastor Bob Hill in which he address your question and this passage in particular...

Your Election by God - 1 Thessalonians

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by swanca99
In 9:6-7, Paul makes the assertion, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isacc shall thy seed be called."

He uses Scripture, to support his assertion about Isaac, in verses 8 and 9.

I see him going on, in the following verses, to support his assertion, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." I think this is one of his primary purposes at least through 9:29, and perhaps this is still at least one of his purposes all the way though 11:10. Do you see that as well?

I suppose so, I'm not sure what your point is though. In other words, so what?
My point is that Romans 9 cannot be correctly used to teach that God predetermines which individuals will be saved and which will not because Romans 9 is about Israel, about nations, groups, not individuals. Who exactly comprises Israel or the seed of Abraham and why makes no difference. Whoever Israel comprises, that is who Paul is talking about in chapter 9, not Mr. John Q. Somebody who lives down the street.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Predestination/election is corporate vs individual.

God predestined that all who believe would be part of the elect. Conversely, all those who reject Him will not be part of the corporate elect. All those who believe are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. God sovereignly established the plan of salvation, including room for free, loving relationships that are not deterministic.

 

[swanca99]

Clete and Godrulz,

I'll give you a little further explanation of why I asked this question:

Originally posted by swanca99

In 9:6-7, Paul makes the assertion, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isacc shall thy seed be called."

He uses Scripture, to support his assertion about Isaac, in verses 8 and 9.

I see him going on, in the following verses, to support his assertion, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." I think this is one of his primary purposes at least through 9:29, and perhaps this is still at least one of his purposes all the way though 11:10. Do you see that as well?

If Paul is giving arguments to support this assertion, the argument flows much better (IMHO) if we understand him to be speaking of individual election in those verses we have discussed. He narrows it down as he goes: from corporate (i.e., Israel) election to individual election, showing that God has spoken of a remnant from among His chosen nation, and that there are still some, including Paul himself, who were called from among that chosen nation who, along with those of us called from among the origianally unchosen (corporately) gentiles, make up "the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory."

The above paragraph is a REALLY short blurb, off the cuff, intended just to give you a little idea of what I meant by that question. I'll try to give a better explanation sometime showing how I trace the argument through these three chapters, but I'm in the middle of several other projects right now and by the time I get done with those this thread will probably have died. If so, I'll just put it in a different or new thread.

I have said before that proving the idea of individual election is not what this passage (Romans 9-11) is all about. However, by understanding Paul to be refering to individual election in those verses we have discussed, it contributes to his support of his assertion that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."

Clete, you've answered my questions to the point where I now have a good understanding of how you, and probably others who hold you views, interpret this passage. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into it, and as I said before, I hope there are people reading this thread who, although they may not be participating, have at least gotten some benefit in reading our exchange.

Yours because His,
Swanca

 

[Clete]

Clete, you've answered my questions to the point where I now have a good understanding of how you, and probably others who hold you views, interpret this passage. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into it, and as I said before, I hope there are people reading this thread who, although they may not be participating, have at least gotten some benefit in reading our exchange.

And an enjoyable exchange it was! :up:
I am curious, however, to know whether I've convinced you of anything or was this simply an academic excerise?

Either way, I, for one, hope you don't stay gone long. It's refreshing to have someone new with which to discuss these things. I like it when someone actually sees and understands my reasoning and who responds accordingly whether they agree with it or not. In short, you're intellectually honest, or at least you have been in this discussion, and so I would love for you to stick around.

Resting in Him,
Clete