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.

I am glad you are moving away from RnMom and beginning to focus on others. That is good news for her, but the others need to be forewarned that you will very soon be every bit as nasty with them.

You have been quite predatory with RnMom. (I refer to On the Trinity post #4, #21, #67, #130, 184, etc., and that is just on the previous thread.) You are demanding complete control over her mind in religious matters, with the alternative being eternity in hell if she refuses. This goes far beyond "contending earnestly for the faith", far beyond the "foolishness of preaching", and far beyond trying to win souls to Christ, far into forbidden territory.

You call her a heretic, a false teacher. That is a dime-a-dozen everyday accusation around here from your fellow Calvinists, but buried in the midst of your long, malevolent posts it appears to carry a much heavier connotation. It wasn't so many centuries ago that evil men were burning at the stake those they charged with heresy, trying to enforce their orthodoxy through terror. Thankfully no one can use such means in this free country, so long as our freedoms are protected from abusive government and illegal individual acts, but you are nonetheless earnestly trying to enforce your orthodoxy, hoping to make God -- or rather the idolatrous god of the Calvinists, and the prospect of eternity in hell, your enforcer.

The other Calvinists posting here need to have enough discernment to know the difference between the preaching of the Gospel and predatory mind-control behavior. What is mind-control over the Internet if not this? They need to think about the need to discipline their leader when he gets way out of line. The Democrats needed to discipline their leader -- remove him from office -- and wouldn't.

Sometimes it is the medical professionals, the caregivers, who are the last to realize that they are in need of professional help.

Please, doc, do your best to convince RnMom, and the others, to their satisfaction, that you are not in the mind-control business. You can start by letting others know that they can disagree with you without accusations, attacks, and heavy warnings of eternal damnation. As you exhort all to come to Christ, tell the truth about those who already have, and acknowledge their devotion and commitment in faith to Him, even though you disagree with them on matters of doctrine.

Your #30: the majority of the professed followers of Jehovah were no more regenerate than my dog

You mean dogs don't go to heaven? :-)

30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise him among the multitude.
31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul. (Psalm 109:30-31)

To the_doc-I started reading your post on Romans and stopped right at the point where you stated that 'God did not intend to save them!(Vs6)

This is obvious from two points (now, I do not want to misundertand you!) God gives the free offer and they will not repent. Sinners use their what, 'free will' do they?

You double tongued devil!

You know full well that Total depravity means that the sinner can ONLY make one decision, to continue to follow his old nature.

That is why God must regenerate first, so then the New Man' can repent and believe (Iresistible grace)

You use the terms 'free' when there is no choice involved! Now tell us how we are misunderstanding you!(the oddly free refusal to accept the free offer of the Gospel!)

Then you go on-Regeneration MUST preceed saving faith-a point that you told Woody that was not necessary!

Why must Regeneration preceed saving faith doc? Is it because the unRegenerate man CANNOT believe BECAUSE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY!

You pious fraud!

Now, lament that no one understands you!

To use 'oddly free refusal' when you know that according to your wicked system man CANNOT chose for God, God must chose him.

Funny, doc, I didn't see much on Romans! All of sudden you jump to John!

Rom.10:1 Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Rom.11:1 I say then hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin

Hey, doc, see any connection!

God intended for Israel to fall?

Rom.10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people (sounds like a little resistance there (Acts.7:51) against God's will!

Yet, God in His WISDOM turned Israel's rejection of Him into His glory by creating the church, the bride for His Son (Rom.11:25,Eph.5:30)

Your system has God choosing who will be saved and who be lost from the beginning, with no basis for that choice except His own sovereign will. All your talk about 'freedom' 'choice'and 'grace' are only phoney pious talk to deceive those who do not know WHAT you really mean by 'freedom' and 'choice'.

Even so, come Lord Jesus