beloved57
Well-known member
Worthless comments!
Romans Chapter 9 and Calvinism
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Worthless comments!
The God that you believe in cannot be trusted.
Who can trust a God that sends people to hell for no reason other than they were born after Adam?
This is why there is no scripture any where in the Bible that says God does predestinate people to heaven or to hell.
It is another Calvinist fairy tale.
Nanja
Well-known member
Ordaining them to condemnation is the same as predestinating them to Hell.
Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,
ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
That's exactly what you're guilty of, Pate:
"turning the doctrine of the Grace of our God into lasciviousness:
Asserting it to be a licentious doctrine, when it is not;
or by treating it in a wanton and ludicrous manner, scoffing at it,
and lampooning it; or by making the doctrine of grace universal,
extending it equally alike to all mankind, and thereby harden and
encourage men in sin." (John Gill commentary on Jude 1:4)
~~~~~
beloved57
Well-known member
Good Post!
Actually Jude 1:4 fits Calvinism perfectly.
You, like B57, have this warped, perverted, twisted view of Gods grace.
beloved57
Well-known member
More scoffing at the Truth !
beloved57
Well-known member
More worthless comments!
THREAD REBOOT!!!!!!!
Romans Chapter 9 and Calvinism
I thought I'd start by simply posting my take on the chapter. I thought to take it verse by verse but then I realized that would be entirely too lengthy and not really necessary so I decided just to clearly communicate the way I think the text should be taken without going into that much meticulous detail.
Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever. Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.
Now, with that in mind let's get to it...
The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.
It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...
And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...
Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.
This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...
This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...
Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.
This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.
Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...
Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.
Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.
It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Romans Chapter 9 and Calvinism
I thought I'd start by simply posting my take on the chapter. I thought to take it verse by verse but then I realized that would be entirely too lengthy and not really necessary so I decided just to clearly communicate the way I think the text should be taken without going into that much meticulous detail.
Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever. Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.
Now, with that in mind let's get to it...
The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.
It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...
Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.
Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...
Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""
This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...
Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."
Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.
This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.
Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...
Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.
Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.
It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Dialogos
Well-known member
Let me start by saying that I totally agree with Clete here. We must first look to the immediate context. When we do that, the Calvinistic interpretation is actually more logically coherent than the alternative.Clete said:
Again, there is no need in Romans 8 to appeal to an a priori theological conclusions. Paul is clear enough without having to appeal to Calvin, or Boyd, Sanders, Enyart, etc…Clete said:
I find the opposite to be true.Clete said:
Sort of, but not entirely correct. Paul is justifying how God can be faithful to His covenant with Abraham and, at the same time, include gentiles and exclude many of the physical descendants of Abraham.Clete said:
We cannot interpret Romans 9 divorced from Paul’s conclusions in Romans 8. Those being that God foreknows, predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies (in that order) all who love Him and are called according to His purpose. Paul reminds us that no one can bring a charge against God’s “elect” (Romans 8:33).
Then Paul beings to justify how it is that some gentiles are in while most Jews are currently out.
But it is a mistake to say that God cut out Israel entirely, Paul disputes this very mistaken assumption in Romans 11:5.
Incorrect, we do not get to divorce the context and conclusions of Romans 8 from Paul’s discussion in Romans 9 and Paul discusses both “election” and “predestination.” Predestination in Romans 8:29-30 and Election in Romans 8:33.Clete said:
This statement illustrates part of the problem. Paul did not write Romans in “chapters.” There is no introduction and summary of the chapter, Paul is continuing his thoughts from Romans 8.Clete said:
Furthermore, while Paul is upset that most Israelites have rejected the gospel, Paul is clear to argue that God’s word hasn’t failed because not all (individual) descendants of Israel belong to Israel (Romans 9:6) which means that Paul is introducing his discussion in Romans 9 by presenting an argument for why some individual Jews are saved and other individual Jews aren’t and what follows in Romans 9 illustrates and buttresses this very point.
Clete quotes Romans 9:1-5 and then comments:
I agree, this in itself, is enough to make it clear that Paul is absolutely talking about individual salvation and not national service.Clete said:
Paul is not talking about how Gentiles, who did not pursue national service attained national service by faith but Israel, who pursue national service by the law has neglected to attain to national service. Paul is not saying that Israel stumbled because they did not seek national service by faith.
What Paul is absolutely saying is that individual gentiles who did not pursue righteousness (which comes from being saved, justified before God) have attained it, by faith. That Israel who pursued right-standing before God through the law did not attain salvation because they did not attain righteousness (that accompanies salvation) by faith. They pursued salvation by works not faith and stumbled over the stumbling stone.
If you look at Paul’s argument, his conclusions in Romans 9 has precisely nothing to do with national service and everything to do with an individual’s right-standing before God (righteousness) that comes from being saved by faith. Therefore, Paul’s conclusion has everything to do with individual salvation and nothing to do with national service.
That’s important, because Clete is going to have to justify why he thinks Paul’s discussion of Pharaoh and Paul’s example of Jacob and Esau have nothing to do with the conclusion Paul gives us in Romans 9:18
Remember, Clete advocated the following:
If Clete is going to meet his own burden, he must explain why he thinks it is logically coherent to believe that Paul’s argument that Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh are about nations and how God deals with nations when Paul’s conclusion is about individuals and how individuals have right-standing with God.Clete said:
I disagree. It is true that both Malachi and Genesis speak of the nations that will come from Jacob’s descendants and Esau’s descendants. It is also true that, throughout the OT, God will refer to a “nation” by referencing the federal head of that nation, such as God’s reference to “Israel” as “Jacob” as He does in Isaiah 14:1 (for example).Clete said:
But there are three critical reasons from the immediate context why Paul isn’t doing this in Romans 9.
First, Paul makes an assertion in Romans 9:6 that the examples of Sarah’s children, Rebekah’s children and Pharaoh illustrate.
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, (Rom 9:6 ESV)
However we interpret the illustrations, we cannot do so in a way that undermines the point Paul is illustrating. Paul clearly isn’t speaking about Israel as a national whole because Paul wants to deal with the subset of individual Israelites who are saved that constitute the faithful remnant, the descendants of Israel who do belong to Israel. Paul intentionally wants to take our focus off of Israel as a whole in order to justify God’s choosing of the remnant. This leads to the second point.
Second, Paul begins his justification by giving illustrations that any biblically literate Jew would agree with, the first of which points out that God wasn’t obligated to bless all of the physical descendants of Abraham equally (Romans 9:8-10), it was through Isaac (not Ishmael) that were children of the promise. Paul continues His thoughts by using Jacob and Esau as another illustration of the point, and while Paul is fine with the fact that Israel was chosen rather than Edom, Paul is clear that God did the choosing before either individual baby became a nation!
…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- (Rom 9:11 ESV)
Paul says that God’s purpose in election was God’s choosing Jacob when neither Jacob nor Esau (as individuals) were even born, or had done anything good or bad. Paul isn’t challenging common sense, Paul knows that when babies are born they are born as individuals and not as nations and Paul also knows that what God meant in Gen 25:23 was that Jacob and Esau would both grow up and have children and their children would have children and their progeny would become nations respectively. However, Paul takes great care to argue that God’s choosing happened before either individual baby was born, therefore God’s choosing definitely had implications for these individual’s progeny, but the choosing happened to individuals, as individuals.
Third, Paul’s example of Pharaoh is essential to his point not a departure from his point.
So when Paul says that God told Moses “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” it is abundantly clear that Paul isn’t talking about a nation but a person and Paul isn’t talking about service but about salvation. In fact, Pharaoh, unwittingly, did serve God, but he wasn’t’ the recipient of God’s mercy or compassion in a salvific sense. Any Jew would have given a hearty “amen” to these examples but then Paul applies them to buttress his initial point from verse 6 that “not all individual Israelites are Israel.” Again, Paul is arguing that God’s word hasn’t failed, not all individual Israelites belong to Israel, Paul is not arguing the point that Clete and others wants to import into the text which is “not all nations are chosen for national service.”
Before I go on, I’ll address an assertion Clete makes about Romans 9:12.
This does not take into consideration the blessing that Isaac gave to Jacob and the explanation given to Esau.Clete said:
To Jacob:
Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!" (Gen 27:29 ESV)
To Esau:
Isaac answered and said to Esau, "Behold, I have made him lord over you, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?" (Gen 27:37 ESV)
Esau was made a servant of Jacob at the time of Isaac’s death and when the land could no longer sustain both families, it was Esau who left his father’s land not Jacob because Jacob retained the blessing of his father Isaac and Esau embraced his brother as master of the land. Therefore, Esau did, in fact, serve Jacob.
Clete refers to Jeremiah 18:1-10Clete said:
Clete errs here by being too selective. The “Potter/clay” analogy isn’t only present in Jeremiah 18 it is also present in Isaiah (41:25, 45:9 and 64:7 for example).Clete said:
Clete wants to import the nationalistic metaphor in Jeremiah 18 in order to nullify the fact that Paul uses the analogy of Potter/clay to talk about individuals.
How do we know that Paul is talking about individuals?
Two very simple reasons.
First, Paul introduces the metaphor by saying the following.
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom 9:20 ESV)
Who are you oh man, not who are you oh nation.
Paul is talking about singular individuals as "man" demands.
Second...
(Romans 9:21-24 ESV) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Just follow Paul’s argument.
The Potter makes vessels and verse 24 is clear that vessels = individuals. Paul says that the vessels of mercy are people (us, whom He has called…).
Again, lets heed Clete’s own words.
We shouldn’t be looking to Jeremiah 18 to rescue the Potter/clay analogy from the conclusions that are clear from the immediate context. Paul is clear, from the immediate context, that vessels are people, not nations.Clete said:
Paul starts by talking about how some individuals Jews are saved while most aren’t and uses examples of God’s sovereign choice of individuals to buttress his argument. Then Paul gives a common analogy, Potter/clay, and applies it to individuals (not nations) as verse 24 clearly tells us.Clete said:
Long rambling post are a bore.
If you can't say it in a couple of hundred words, don't say it at all.
If you can't say it in a couple of hundred words, don't say it at all.
Dialogos
Well-known member
If my post is 700 yours must be 5000 words long.
Christianity is not that complicated, It is religious people that make it complicated.
I am not going to respond at all to Dialogos' post except to say that his brain is malfunctioning. He either cannot read or thinks words mean the opposite of what everyone else in the universe thinks they mean.
Any other response would be a waste of time. Perhaps we could talk about beer or cats or something less complicated but there's simply no common ground upon which to have even the simplest conversation on this topic.
Any other response would be a waste of time. Perhaps we could talk about beer or cats or something less complicated but there's simply no common ground upon which to have even the simplest conversation on this topic.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
LOL.
You cant respond.
He completely refuted yer bumbling of scripture point by point.
Sorry man, but you got yer butt handed to yuh.
wrong - you didn't read it - it's awesome
this reminded me, (i actually do have memory loss issues), you make good debating posts. 1mind1spirit is right, you addressed every point and successfully refuted clete's assertions. the ones that are wrong. you got 'em all and very well said. i learned alot, thanks. God Bless
LOL.
You cant respond.
He completely refuted yer bumbling of scripture point by point.
Sorry man, but you got yer butt handed to yuh.
:chuckle: