What Is Romans 9 About?
- Thread starter DevotiontoBible
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If God is the Creator of the Universe, He controls everything in it, because every detail is dependent on Him.
Nothing is hidden from Him, nothing is random or unpredictable for Him.
You do not need a specific verse in Romans 9 for this simple knowledge. Romans 9 and whole the Bible is in the context of real God with real attributes.
Nothing is hidden from Him, nothing is random or unpredictable for Him.
You do not need a specific verse in Romans 9 for this simple knowledge. Romans 9 and whole the Bible is in the context of real God with real attributes.
Last edited:
E
God did not elect anyone and left everything to randomeness
He told the mother, Two nations are in your womb, the older will serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob (Israel) I have loved, Esau (Edom) I have hated.
One group says God chose to save one fetus before it was born, God chose to save 0ne fetus before it was born
The other group says God chose Isreal over Edom to be his people through whom God gave the promises.
A vastly different interpretation
And nothign random about it, Paul goes on to show that all of this was prophesied. And it will all work out in the end (all isreal will be saved) God did nto make a mistake.
He told the mother, Two nations are in your womb, the older will serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob (Israel) I have loved, Esau (Edom) I have hated.
One group says God chose to save one fetus before it was born, God chose to save 0ne fetus before it was born
The other group says God chose Isreal over Edom to be his people through whom God gave the promises.
A vastly different interpretation
And nothign random about it, Paul goes on to show that all of this was prophesied. And it will all work out in the end (all isreal will be saved) God did nto make a mistake.
LOL!!!!! So there we have it, simpletonized and settled. Romans 9 is boiled down to "Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ not by works of the law as the Jews believe." 
Such profundity and exposition not witnessed since the dawn of the age?
Goodness sake, reminds me of the preachers who think they've exhausted the book of Romans in 3 easy "sermons." You haven't even touched the chapter, and have simply reduced it down to a statement to garner amen's as if it covered the gist of it. You've little respect for the Word, Gospel, or Scripture my friend, if not just blatant disrespect. Have you even bothered to read it? Your summary hardly represents its contents.
Such profundity and exposition not witnessed since the dawn of the age?
Goodness sake, reminds me of the preachers who think they've exhausted the book of Romans in 3 easy "sermons." You haven't even touched the chapter, and have simply reduced it down to a statement to garner amen's as if it covered the gist of it. You've little respect for the Word, Gospel, or Scripture my friend, if not just blatant disrespect. Have you even bothered to read it? Your summary hardly represents its contents.
including the Davidic psalms.
I can understand that DevotiontoBible, in his focus on the grace vs works dichotomy, oversimplified.
His oversimplification missed the main thought of the chapter, in fact. Having no personal interest or stake in Israel's condition; for DevotiontoBible, the entire chapter distills to verse 33 which is the only verse that addresses his concerns.
D
While for example Karl Barth´s commentary book "Epistle to the Romans" has 700 pages...
Calvinists seem to be more into Romans than others
Calvinists seem to be more into Romans than others
Considering you kind of asked something that I can answer without getting into this argument, I'd like to answer that one.
Yes, it is true. Calvinists get into Romans more than most other books. There's a reason for that. Romans does something that no other book in the Bible does. It explains all of the Bible even before there was a Bible. It is the doctrine of God. It explains why he did what he did. It's our fundamental beliefs in short-form.
It should be fundamental beliefs of all Christians, not just Calvinists.
What does all this mean? [**All what? All of everything Paul just wrote in Romans ch 9**] Even though the Gentiles were not trying to follow God’s standards, they were made right with God. And it was by faith that this took place. But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law, never succeeded. Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the law instead of by trusting in him. They stumbled over the great rock in their path.
Romans 9:30*-32 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.9.30-32.NLT
There you have it.
Too many non/anti cals preachers skip Romans 9 altogether, or give it a cursory treatment in my experience.
It's way more interesting when they attempt to spin it into another message than the one revealed in the text though.
I honestly believe people are "scared" of the God it reveals, which to me isn't a real problem. Was reading today about the angel that appeared to Manoah's wife concerning Samson, and 13:6 talks about the awesome nature/appearance of this angel, and that word right there carries some heavy meaning more than just reverence. I believe, like John Gill and others that this was God the Son.
It's way more interesting when they attempt to spin it into another message than the one revealed in the text though.
I honestly believe people are "scared" of the God it reveals, which to me isn't a real problem. Was reading today about the angel that appeared to Manoah's wife concerning Samson, and 13:6 talks about the awesome nature/appearance of this angel, and that word right there carries some heavy meaning more than just reverence. I believe, like John Gill and others that this was God the Son.
E
Wrong, the passage is not about Gentiles receiving christ, nor was the 1st 6 verses looking to that.
The context is God did nto make a mistake choosing Isreal as a nation.
The two verses you used were just proofs that even though Isreal fell. It was prophesied they would. and he explained why isreal, even though they were given all the things, did not attain righteousness, Yet gentiles did. Which he explained in the previous verses. That it was prophesied it would happen.
The context is God did nto make a mistake choosing Isreal as a nation.
The two verses you used were just proofs that even though Isreal fell. It was prophesied they would. and he explained why isreal, even though they were given all the things, did not attain righteousness, Yet gentiles did. Which he explained in the previous verses. That it was prophesied it would happen.
I get it too, brother, it is a tough chapter!
To just write it off in that manner, as if it were handled properly, as if it were that simple is what a person should take issue with. The entire objective of the statement was apparently to do that, and put others who know God's electing Sovereignty in their place as if God does not do as the text says.
Of course his statement hardly did any of this. The disingenuous nature and pretense of the comment begged to be addressed.
No offense, but I've not witnessed any non-Cal rebut the Reformed position, and I've read and listened to many who have tried. I'm talking some good godly men, but they all fall short. People imho are afraid to let God be God in all his glory, they are instead offended by this.
To just write it off in that manner, as if it were handled properly, as if it were that simple is what a person should take issue with. The entire objective of the statement was apparently to do that, and put others who know God's electing Sovereignty in their place as if God does not do as the text says.
Of course his statement hardly did any of this. The disingenuous nature and pretense of the comment begged to be addressed.
No offense, but I've not witnessed any non-Cal rebut the Reformed position, and I've read and listened to many who have tried. I'm talking some good godly men, but they all fall short. People imho are afraid to let God be God in all his glory, they are instead offended by this.
yes lol - and probably 3 sermons each only 15 to 20 minutes long!
i recently finished listening to a series of over 300 hour-long lectures on Romans, and the guy readily admits he's only been scratching the surface. he only stopped i think because after years of concentrating here, there were other things he felt he needs to cover. one could argue he didn't get far past Romans 5:12 - that verse alone merits decades of study, lifetimes.
he said in ((at least)) one lecture something to the effect that if anyone ever thinks they have completely understood any topic in scripture, they are bluntly, wrong.
Last edited:
Many scholars have read, studied, exegeted, labored over the book of Romans their entire lives. One, whom I cannot recall at the moment had Romans read to him on a very regular basis to help him grasp it due to its depth and complexity. I believe it was daily or once a week.
How many times has the average Christian even read through Romans? Once? Some have never read it even once.
Just look at the volumes written to express the Gospel message contained in its pages and plunge its depths. Listen to the numerous sermons by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Romans.
For any person to imply Romans is simple shows one to be ignorant (before anyone get's bent over that word, ignorant means "without knowledge" not "stupid") of the book and its message, and just how little they really understand about its complexity or even the message of the Gospel itself. Sorry, I don't buy the implications that it is simple because plainly it is not simple and to say such a thing is totally unwarranted.
How many times has the average Christian even read through Romans? Once? Some have never read it even once.
Just look at the volumes written to express the Gospel message contained in its pages and plunge its depths. Listen to the numerous sermons by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Romans.
For any person to imply Romans is simple shows one to be ignorant (before anyone get's bent over that word, ignorant means "without knowledge" not "stupid") of the book and its message, and just how little they really understand about its complexity or even the message of the Gospel itself. Sorry, I don't buy the implications that it is simple because plainly it is not simple and to say such a thing is totally unwarranted.
"not because of works but because of Him who calls" -- verse 11
does He call individuals or nations?
"even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles" -- verse 24
individuals, nations, both . . ?
"it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" -- verse 16
mercy to individuals or to nations?
will and exertion of individuals or of nations?
both?