Replies

[The is a repost from the end of the previous thread.]

To the_doc-anyone who can read English can see that 9-11 is parenthetical

It deals with Israel and her rejection and her future reacceptance.

Quit obscuring the point. Anyone who can read English can see that Romans 9 is talking about salvation and damnation in the entire chapter. Look at how the chapter starts. Look at how it concludes. Look at how the next chapter starts. QED, bubba.

***

In the beginning of Chapter 9, Paul is pointing out how much his kinsmen in the chosen nation of Israel had in the way of privileges as the professed people of God.

But notice that Paul is specifically lamenting the fact that these privileges did not save most of them. This is the point about which Paul is concerned. And it is the subject of the entire chapter. Notice what he says along these very lines. He comes up with a real shocker in v.6. He says that God had not intended to save most of them. This is obvious in v.6 in two ways. First of all, Paul is saying in v.6 that the Word of God did not fail to accomplish its purposes in the national of Israel.

(See also Isaiah 55:11. God's Word NEVER really fails. What appear to us to be failures on the part of the Word are not failures after all. Surprisingly enough, God is not trying to save everyone. Why does this surprise folks? It is because they do not understand the dilemma inherent in the free offer of the gospel. The free offer is sincere, but when unregenerate sinners exercise their free will, they don't come to Christ. Period. [The problem is, they won't repent.]

This oddly free refusal to accept the free offer of the gospel is the point of the parable of the feast in Luke 14. It is also the point of John 6:37, 39, and 44.

This horrible mess which fallen sinners are in is why we Calvinists have tirelessly pointed out to Christians and unspiritual scoffers on this thread that regeneration has to precede saving faith--not the other way around [as is ordinarily taught by careless theologians in our day].)

Back to the argument of Romans 9, I will reiterate that Paul is flatly declaring that God's Word had not failed to accomplish its purposes in national Israel. This is not a matter of interpretation, friend. This is an explicit statement in the text. You need to deal with it. And if you ever manage to deal with it honestly, you will have the entire doctrine of predestination confronting you.

Study it for a while if you can even stand to admit that you are wrong. (Most people on this forum can do no such thing, by the way.)

So, God's Word succeeded in establishing national Israel with all of its theocratic privileges. But the God of predestination was not trying to convert everyone in Israel--which is the sense in which the Word of God did not fail. And it is the very thing Paul is concerned to discuss. Paul finds solace in the decidedly awful, majestic will of His Sovereign God.

Paul elucidates this doctrine of God's will, of God's utterly sovereign, unstoppable purposes of salvation and damnation, in another thing which he says in v.6. He says that not all who were of Israel were Israel. He is telling us that there was an Israel within an Israel. This Biblical-theological oddity ultimately tells us that the theocratic election of Israel as a nation was an Old Covenant type for the soteriologic election of those who are chosen unto salvation.

This second body is the second Israel Paul talks about in v.6. It is related, BTW, to what Peter says in 1 Peter 2:9 when he refers to the saved as comprising a royal priesthood and holy nation. (Peter is borrowing the idea of literal Israel and applying it figuratively to the Church, which functions as a metaphorical nation with its King in Heaven.)

Now, the idea of being chosen is the main idea inherent in Israel, as far as Paul is concerned. But Paul is clearly telling us that it is possible to be chosen in the national sense and not chosen in the spiritual sense. It is possible to be in the first Israel and to miss the second Israel.

This is exactly what the Lord Jesus is telling us in John 10 concerning what He calls His sheep. Most Jews assumed, based on the Old Testament figures of the "sheep," that being in national Israel made them members of that flock which would surely be saved. But Jesus shocked them with the new revelation in John 10 that there is another election, i.e., another idea of Israel. And even if God had a theocratic flock, the flock which the Lord Jesus would serve as the Good Shepherd involves an altogether different election!

The net result of what the Lord was saying in John 10 is that it establishes the peculiar situation of an Israel within Israel. It tells us that some Jews were elect unto salvation, whereas many (actually, most) were not elect unto salvation. Those who were elect unto salvation were the Lord's true sheep in His special role as the Good Shepherd.

This is why we have the odd logic in John 10:26. Notice that it is presenting the reverse of what Wesleyan/Arminians want it to say. Faith doesn't get a sinner elected. Election is what actually guarantees that he will receive the supernatural gift of faith.

What I am saying, in case you did not notice, is that John 10:26 utterly destroys the Weseleyan/Arminian notion that God elects based on His precognition of a sinner's faith. According to the Lord's Own logic, election is the ultimate cause of the sinner's faith, not the result of his faith. John 6 also rules out the Wesleyan/Arminian position--very emphatically so.

(The Wesleyan/Arminian theologian does not understand what God's foreknowledge really is. It is a planning faculty, not mere precognition. God envisions a people of faith, and He makes that scenario happen.)

John 10:26 is telling us is that a non-elect sinner will never be morally able to believe the gospel. Intellectual apprehensions aside, his moral wickedness will seal his unbelief. He hates the Truth. He has no Truth-receptors in his soul--precisely because he is unregenerate. He has a nature of unbelief, of hatred for the Truths of his Creator. He will not believe the gospel. He will not come to Christ even when invited. (See again John 6:37, 39, and 44.)

But he may very well profess faith in Christ. That's different.

I would point out that reprobates confronted with the awful Truth of God's utter sovereignty in election and reprobation will just complain that if predestination is true, then the free offer of the gospel is a lie! They're wrong, of course. The Bible teaches both true predestination and a true free offer gospel. If folks can't grasp this in a believing way, that's too bad. They'd better quit calling God a liar. (But a reprobate will not stop calling God a liar--not in this life, anyway. So, when God throws him into hell forever, he gets precisely what he deserves. [He wouldn't stop calling God a liar, so God won't stop punishing him.])

***

As an aside, I would point out that the spiritual election which forms spiritual Israel is bigger than the election of national Israel. Spiritual Israel includes some Jews but a great many Gentiles. The Lord Jesus makes this point in John 10 when He says "Other sheep have I, and they are not of this fold. And there shall be one fold and One Shepherd." He is telling us that He intended to go out and secure the salvation of elect Gentiles and bring them into the Body of the saved, into the one fold of His True Church, the fold in which there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

When you start putting all of this together, the doctrines of election and reprobation are actually pretty easy. The Apostle Paul already had the material which we have in the form of John 10. He understood the election of grace. And he understood that being in the first Israel meant nothing in the way of salvation. And Paul noticed the very strange sovereignty of God in His dealings with the descendants of Abraham. He noticed that God continually exercised His sovereign prerogatives in chosing one descendant and rejecting another.

Jacob and Esau were the very best example of this. They were chosen to head two different nations, but Paul uses the very sovereignty of God's choosing to illustrate the soteriological point which he has been concerned to address from the very beginning of Chapter 9.

As Calvin pointed out, God's choice of one nation over another is emblematic of His sovereignty in spiritual election and spiritual non-election. Paul is definitely keying on this very point to illustrate what he was talking about in vv.1-6. Although it is true that Esau was the head of the nation of the Edomites, Paul was keying on the fact that Esau, a physical descendant of Abraham himself, was reprobate. And Esau was an individual. Reprobation is just as personal as salvation and damnation are. Esau was damned by the sovereign Creator Who owed him nothing anyway.

This is also why Paul goes on to talk about the reprobation of Pharaoh. Pharaoh was also an individual.

***

This stuff ain't hard. Romans 9 is obviously talking about salvation and damnation, and these are matters which go all the way down to the level of individuals. Some individuals within Paul's own physical nation were saved--because God saved them individually--but most of the individuals within Judaism were not saved. God simply left them in their unregenerate state. And He did this by the very design of His plan of self-glorification in election and reprobation.

He picks one individual and rejects another. He is the Potter making sovereign decisions with the clay of fallen humanity.

So, if you don't think this God is very glorious, maybe you need to realize that He's not all that impressed with you. Maybe you haven't given sufficient thought to the matter of sin. It is a lot worse than most people realize. (The Wesleyans are the worst I have ever encountered in their dullness concerning the horror of sin. But the easy-believism types who are ruining today's dispensational movement are not much better, IMO.)

Again, this is pretty easy, pretty clear doctrine. As I said in a humorous comment to jude24, I have the distinct advantage of defending the correct theological position. Some of the clearest passages in the Bible support me. And Romans 9 is one of the clearest of all.

On the other hand, it is impossible to embrace what Paul was saying in Romans 9 if you are determined to defy the Calvinistic position. Gosh, Paul was a Calvinist.

If you continue to argue this point by scoffing at me--as you have done incessantly up until this point--I will just start laughing at you. Your scoffing has gone on for too long already. You don't know whereof you speak, and thus far, you have been far too proud to admit that.

You really need to straighten up. And you need to quit trashing the Reformers. They were correct when they said that the issue which we are discussing was the most important issue of the entire Reformation. And even if no one else on FR is inclined to laugh at you, I don't care. I will have God Himself laughing with me (Psalm 2:4).

A sinner doesn't have to be a Calvinist to be saved. But then again, it's not a real good idea to scoff at predestinarian doctrine when God decides to make an issue of it with you in His providence. The Truth is more important in this regard than most people realize, and the modern apostasy from sound doctrine--which started in a big way with none other than John Wesley--is a pretty scary mess. (Wesley actually taught his followers to be "loving" folks, but he simultaneously taught them to hate many, many important Truths. Something awful was going on with that fellow. And I see it in his followers.)

I don't claim to have infallible discernment as to who is saved and who is lost. But I will say that I am presenting a God Whom most professing Christians in our day don't really know any more than the lost Jews knew Him in Paul's day. And that's not an accident, either.

You need to be sure your God is the God of Romans 9. He's the real God.

On a previous thread, I pointed out that King David said his soul would not be left in hell, and someone challenged that, writing that Peter said that referred to Christ. So let's look at the relevant passages in full:

Matthew 27:50-53
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Peter said on the Day of Pentecost that David was not among these.

Psalm 16: A Psalm of David
8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

Peter quotes this passage in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost:

Acts 2
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 For David speaketh concerning him [Christ], I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He [David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his [Christ's] soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

(Emphasis, brackets, and color are mine.)

It is clear that in Psalm 16:10a, David refers to his own soul, and in verse 10b to the Holy One of Israel, Jesus Christ. Peter affirms that David was not among the righteous: in Acts 2:29 he says David was not resurrected with the righteous (see Matthew 27:53), and in verse 34 he says David is not ascended into the heavens. David had not yet paid the full price that he needs to pay for the murder of Uriah. But David declares in Psalm 16:10a that the LORD will not leave his soul in hell, that eventually there will come an end to his sojourn there.

Now Peter, in Acts 2:31, applies both halves of Psalm 16:10 to Christ. If Peter hadn't done that and I tried to do it, you guys would object, given the plain meaning of Psalm 16:10a and Acts 2:27a, and you would be horrified that I would suggest that Christ, being sinless, would ever go to hell at all. But Peter is an apostle and a prophet, the chief of the apostles in fact, and his point is that the physical body and the spirit of Christ did not remain apart from each other long enough for physical decomposition (corruption) to take place. Psalm 16:10a can be likened unto Christ because He did go preach to the spirits in prison (see 1 Peter 3:19), indeed it is quite useful for that purpose, and that is what Peter did, liken it unto Christ. But it doesn't fit Christ exactly (not that it needs to for Peter's purpose), for it was not a question of God leaving Christ in hell, "because it was not possible that he should be holden of it" (Acts 2:24).

Now if this explanation does not satisfy you (and it probably won't because you guys think once in hell, always in hell, and you are not about to let Psalm 16:10a get in the way of that), then don't worry about it. The Scriptures are wrested so much around here that I do not want to even have the appearance of doing so myself.

I have been reading this thread and I am amazed at how long the posts are. Shoot, I thought I posted long posts!

To me a thread like this is nothing but white noise. I wonder how many of the people that post produce an income, are either free of debt, or credibly managing what they do have, are honest people, and are not screwing their neighbor?

FWIW, I'd rather see people bickering about the bible than the more absurd debates about evolution, abortion, and homosexuality. In fact, I think it is downright positve that those who on this thread would kill each other because they accuse one another of an improper parsing of some text found in the bible believe that Jesus is Lord, the Son of God, etc, His blood covers our sins and so on. At least I am guessing that to be something you all might have in common. One never knows though ....

From reading the above I gather there are at least 5 different heavens, types of Jesus/God, etc. From the tenor of some of the posts, I would be awfully disappointed to end up next to them in their version of heaven.

I have found that people who blow lots of religious smoke, and biblical hot air, whatever the doctrine, are often unproductive, unimaginative people who don't have anything better to do than to drive themselves and everyone around them crazy with fanatical religious speech. But I guess everybody has to have something to do, something to talk about, whatever.

I have been around Christian circles, and I can say boldly without any hesitation that I am a certified, bonafide born from above follower of Jesus. I get a kick out of people who spend all of their energy trying to disprove something they cannot really get at. Can anyone really know what is going on inside of someone besides Jesus? The thing is, I think people have a good idea where they stand, and the Lord knows perfetly well what is going on. So instead of getting in someone's face and trying to prove what is or is not occurring inside of that individual, I think some people would do well to shut the heck up and tend their own garden. The lack of honor, credibility, virtue, and integrity is something the verse weilding smoke blowers might want to work on within THEMSELVES. (Not pointing any fingers, of course! lol)

It is no wonder so few people ever come to Christ. What a mess. People that are not Christian, or desiring to come closer read a thread like this and they say 'Huh?'

"Well, brother, this is the meat" Uh huh, sure.

All we need to know about Christianity is that it has been a dismal failure. The headlines on the FR broadcast that news to us every day. That is too bad, because a life ordered by the Lord is a good deal for the community. The precipitous decline of such individuals in our country is a real shame. We are all the bigger loser because of it.

My spin on most of the bible is there are just many mysteries. A mystery is something in this lifetime not designed to be found out.

The good news is there is one thing that is no mystery to me at all, and is the one thing that I want out of the deal. If I can get this one thing I will be very very happy indeed, and I will leave the rest of you to argue your verses.

Now if you all can figure out what that one thing is, you not only will discover what makes me tick, but you will also get a bonus point!