God's freewill vs. Mankind's election
- Thread starter RickShafer
- 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.
Regarding Romans 9, this is how my commentary begins,
9:1 — 11:36 The gospel and Israel
Interpreters have often considered these three chapters to have little connection with the real theme of Romans. This section has been understood as an aside motivated by Paul's personal concern for his people, or as a digression on the theme of God's election. But the theme of these chapters is the place of Israel in God's plan of salvation, and this is a theme that is much involved with Paul's concerns in Romans. From the beginning of the letter (1:2; cf. also 3:21, 31; ch. 4)
Paul has been concerned to demonstrate that the gospel stands in continuity with the OT. He wants to make it clear that the coming of Jesus Christ and the new regime of salvation-history that he has inaugurated is no innovation in God's plan for history, but its intended culmination. However, the unbelief of the majority of Jews in Paul's day presents a potential problem for Paul's attempt to establish such continuity. Was not God's promise of salvation given to the people of Israel? How can he remain true to that promise if it is now fulfilled in the church instead of in Israel?
These are the questions Paul answers in chs. 9 - 11, as he defends the thesis that It is not as though God's word had failed (9:6a). Jewish unbelief at the present time does not mean, Paul asserts, that God's promises to his people have failed because
1) God had never promised to save every single Jew (9:6b-29);
2) the Jews are themselves responsible for failing to believe (9:30 - 10:21);
3) God's promises to Israel are even now being fulfilled in a remnant, of Jewish Christians (11:1-10); and
4) God will yet save all Israel (11:12—32). Throughout, Paul is concerned to show that God's promises to his people Israel — when correctly understood - remain fully intact. This 'theology of Israel', in addition to establishing the coherence of the gospel, is also of practical importance. For, as the appeals in 11:12-32 reveal, Paul was aware that the Gentiles in the Roman church were neglecting their indispensable OT 'roots' and looking down on Jews and Jewish Christians.
9:1—6a The issue: Paul's anguish over Israel
The lack of a word or phrase to connect ch. 8 with ch. 9 suggests that there is a pause in Paul's argument at this point. With the celebration of God's unchangeable love for Christians (8:31-39) the climax of his argument to this point has been reached. But it is just this assertion of the certain fulfilment of God's promises to Christians that leads Paul now to raise the question of God's promises to Israel. Vs 1-3 show that this question was an intensely emotional one for him. For Paul never lost his sense of identification with his fellow-Jews. He therefore experiences great sorrow and unceasing anguish over those who are from the standpoint of the flesh (kata sarka) his 'kinsmen' and brothers (2-3).
Although Paul does not tell us why he feels so badly about his fellow-Jews, the parallel in 10:1 makes clear that it is because the great majority of Jews are not saved; for they have refused to believe in Jesus Christ (cf. 9:30 - 10:21). So strongly does Paul feel this, like Moses before him (Ex. 32:31-34), he is willing to sacrifice his own salvation for the sake of the salvation of his fellow-Jews. The strength of Paul's assertion (cf. also v 1) suggests that he may have been aware of some Jews who doubted his concern for his 'kinsmen according to the flesh'.
9:1 — 11:36 The gospel and Israel
Interpreters have often considered these three chapters to have little connection with the real theme of Romans. This section has been understood as an aside motivated by Paul's personal concern for his people, or as a digression on the theme of God's election. But the theme of these chapters is the place of Israel in God's plan of salvation, and this is a theme that is much involved with Paul's concerns in Romans. From the beginning of the letter (1:2; cf. also 3:21, 31; ch. 4)
Paul has been concerned to demonstrate that the gospel stands in continuity with the OT. He wants to make it clear that the coming of Jesus Christ and the new regime of salvation-history that he has inaugurated is no innovation in God's plan for history, but its intended culmination. However, the unbelief of the majority of Jews in Paul's day presents a potential problem for Paul's attempt to establish such continuity. Was not God's promise of salvation given to the people of Israel? How can he remain true to that promise if it is now fulfilled in the church instead of in Israel?
These are the questions Paul answers in chs. 9 - 11, as he defends the thesis that It is not as though God's word had failed (9:6a). Jewish unbelief at the present time does not mean, Paul asserts, that God's promises to his people have failed because
1) God had never promised to save every single Jew (9:6b-29);
2) the Jews are themselves responsible for failing to believe (9:30 - 10:21);
3) God's promises to Israel are even now being fulfilled in a remnant, of Jewish Christians (11:1-10); and
4) God will yet save all Israel (11:12—32). Throughout, Paul is concerned to show that God's promises to his people Israel — when correctly understood - remain fully intact. This 'theology of Israel', in addition to establishing the coherence of the gospel, is also of practical importance. For, as the appeals in 11:12-32 reveal, Paul was aware that the Gentiles in the Roman church were neglecting their indispensable OT 'roots' and looking down on Jews and Jewish Christians.
9:1—6a The issue: Paul's anguish over Israel
The lack of a word or phrase to connect ch. 8 with ch. 9 suggests that there is a pause in Paul's argument at this point. With the celebration of God's unchangeable love for Christians (8:31-39) the climax of his argument to this point has been reached. But it is just this assertion of the certain fulfilment of God's promises to Christians that leads Paul now to raise the question of God's promises to Israel. Vs 1-3 show that this question was an intensely emotional one for him. For Paul never lost his sense of identification with his fellow-Jews. He therefore experiences great sorrow and unceasing anguish over those who are from the standpoint of the flesh (kata sarka) his 'kinsmen' and brothers (2-3).
Although Paul does not tell us why he feels so badly about his fellow-Jews, the parallel in 10:1 makes clear that it is because the great majority of Jews are not saved; for they have refused to believe in Jesus Christ (cf. 9:30 - 10:21). So strongly does Paul feel this, like Moses before him (Ex. 32:31-34), he is willing to sacrifice his own salvation for the sake of the salvation of his fellow-Jews. The strength of Paul's assertion (cf. also v 1) suggests that he may have been aware of some Jews who doubted his concern for his 'kinsmen according to the flesh'.
E
Oh I did? He chose a nationl, not an individual. So how can you continually say I make a great case for God Chosing induviduals. when it is not even in the text itself?
the context of the passage is did God make a mistake Chosing Israel. Jews claimed God chose them based on the righteousness of the fathers. Not based solely on Gods choosing. Paul is refuting that notion.
God Chose jacob (the nation of isreal) over Esau (the nation of Edom) not because Jacob was righteous. He was not. He was a sinner, a theif and many other things. He chose the nation would come thru Jacob, before he was even born.
How does this support God choosing one person over another?
lol. Well thanks. But why would you need to get over it? it is not about jacob the man and Esau the man, It is about Jacob the nation vs Esau the nation.
God did not hate esau the man, he hated esau the nation (malachi) God loved Esau the man, we know because he blessed him greatly. He actually did inherit his fathers riches, because Jacob left.
the context of the passage is did God make a mistake Chosing Israel. Jews claimed God chose them based on the righteousness of the fathers. Not based solely on Gods choosing. Paul is refuting that notion.
God Chose jacob (the nation of isreal) over Esau (the nation of Edom) not because Jacob was righteous. He was not. He was a sinner, a theif and many other things. He chose the nation would come thru Jacob, before he was even born.
How does this support God choosing one person over another?
lol. Well thanks. But why would you need to get over it? it is not about jacob the man and Esau the man, It is about Jacob the nation vs Esau the nation.
God did not hate esau the man, he hated esau the nation (malachi) God loved Esau the man, we know because he blessed him greatly. He actually did inherit his fathers riches, because Jacob left.
This commentary, though concise, has little to do with the subject at hand.
Infact the commentator blithely skips over the ideas in Romans 9 that Paul clearly states as God's immutable free will regarding
Moses, and Pharaoh, and the vessels fitted for wrath, and the vessels fitted for grace. - Besides this oversight it is a good commentary.
Infact the commentator blithely skips over the ideas in Romans 9 that Paul clearly states as God's immutable free will regarding
Moses, and Pharaoh, and the vessels fitted for wrath, and the vessels fitted for grace. - Besides this oversight it is a good commentary.
Last edited:
E
it does??
thats funny. God gave into moses, and did what he asked. although not in the way moses demanded. God was going to kill all the people of Isreal but moses. But due to moses questioning of Gods motive, God relented. Just like he did Ninevah. God just told moses he would not lead the people. he would only lead moses. And thus Moses became a type of Christ. God led moses by fire and a cloud. And the people were baptised into moses. as Paul tells us
As for Pharoah. Pharoah hardened his own heart long before Christ strengthened his will. (whcih is what the term harden means, to strengthen)
When God hardens us, He strengthens our own free will choices. and makes it easier to chose.. As scripture says, show them truth so seeing they may not see and hearing they may not hear (this they have no excuse) because thay have hardened their own hearts. And God strengthened their resolve by forcing them to reject truth.
Again, I must thank you;.........because you have agreed with me that God chooses.
You say God chooses a nation;....I say God chooses a soul.
(If there is anything we can agree on E.T. concerning the Old Testament and the Mosaic Covenant - -
it is this: that they were examples.
Examples of how a nation-(in this realm), in itself cannot serve God - (Paul said that, I didn't).
And how God is a God of the heart(soul), and not physical nations.
You say God chooses a nation;....I say God chooses a soul.
(If there is anything we can agree on E.T. concerning the Old Testament and the Mosaic Covenant - -
it is this: that they were examples.
Examples of how a nation-(in this realm), in itself cannot serve God - (Paul said that, I didn't).
And how God is a God of the heart(soul), and not physical nations.
No that isn't what Jesus said or the earlier verse I posted. They are both telling us that our salvations depends on which master we decide to serve, either the True God or a false god in which case there is no salvation.
One thing you need to understand about election is that God chooses people like Paul for example, or a nation like the Israelites in the furtherance of His Kingdom. They are elected or chosen to serve Him.
Being elected to serve is one thing, but salvation is something else.
One thing you need to understand about election is that God chooses people like Paul for example, or a nation like the Israelites in the furtherance of His Kingdom. They are elected or chosen to serve Him.
Being elected to serve is one thing, but salvation is something else.
E
yet this does not help your case.
No Scripture says god chose a nation.
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.”
The text paul quoted in romans 9 did not say God chose one person over another, it says God chose one nation over another. Paul would not have taken this passage out of context. and claim God only chose people. For paul would be making a grave error and misquoting the word of God. it is you who states Paul did this.
lol. Yet a nation can serve God. In fact God told abraham a nation would. and they did for some years. but most of the time they did not. It is why they rejected God. Yet Paul in romans 11 says this nation will repent, and one day future, will serve God again.
why was it Jesus could not do what HE WILLED to do? which is to
"gather them as a mother hen gathers her children, but they were NOT WILLING"
If God does not chose based on free will. but all men do his will. If this is true, Isreal would not have rejected Christ, they would have accepted him, because according to jesus own words, THIS was his will.
No Scripture says god chose a nation.
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.”
The text paul quoted in romans 9 did not say God chose one person over another, it says God chose one nation over another. Paul would not have taken this passage out of context. and claim God only chose people. For paul would be making a grave error and misquoting the word of God. it is you who states Paul did this.
lol. Yet a nation can serve God. In fact God told abraham a nation would. and they did for some years. but most of the time they did not. It is why they rejected God. Yet Paul in romans 11 says this nation will repent, and one day future, will serve God again.
why was it Jesus could not do what HE WILLED to do? which is to
"gather them as a mother hen gathers her children, but they were NOT WILLING"
If God does not chose based on free will. but all men do his will. If this is true, Isreal would not have rejected Christ, they would have accepted him, because according to jesus own words, THIS was his will.
You say - "God gave into Moses".
Because Moses desired to save the people he was leading(like a good shepherd); instead of taking up God at His word
and having a nation built after his own seed?
Do you understand how it works?
God didn't give into anyone.
God molded Moses as a potter does an earthen vessel.
God knew Moses would say that - - - -(See office of intercessor!) - Another foreshadowing of Jesus.
Because Moses desired to save the people he was leading(like a good shepherd); instead of taking up God at His word
and having a nation built after his own seed?
Do you understand how it works?
God didn't give into anyone.
God molded Moses as a potter does an earthen vessel.
God knew Moses would say that - - - -(See office of intercessor!) - Another foreshadowing of Jesus.
E
lol. wow. talk about religeous dogma. So know God does chose based on what he knew people would say or do?? which is it??
your right. God did build moses up. he did things to strengthen his free will and trust in God. He started it from the time he left Egypt and went into the wilderness. and we see how God so he would be a better leader.
But God did not force moses to do anything..
and thanks for admitting I was right. and how you take paul out of context in romans 9.
PS. God makes it a habit of wanting to ask so he can give us what we want. It is called his love. thats why he continually says you have not because you do not ask. God wanted moses to say this yes.. But he did not force him. Moses had to chose to say it.
your right. God did build moses up. he did things to strengthen his free will and trust in God. He started it from the time he left Egypt and went into the wilderness. and we see how God so he would be a better leader.
But God did not force moses to do anything..
and thanks for admitting I was right. and how you take paul out of context in romans 9.
PS. God makes it a habit of wanting to ask so he can give us what we want. It is called his love. thats why he continually says you have not because you do not ask. God wanted moses to say this yes.. But he did not force him. Moses had to chose to say it.
E
lol. so now your going to go here. thats funny. I have always maintained God chose a nation. not people. So I forgot the question mark.. You should know by the context I was making a question. Your the one who claimed God chose induviduals not nations..not me.. That was myrespons. Your the one splitting hairs.. Now your just making excuses..
Are you going to admit God Chose a nation and not individual people in genesis. Or continue to do things like this?
Are you going to admit God Chose a nation and not individual people in genesis. Or continue to do things like this?
If He prepares them.....like He did Moses......
See 40 years in the wilderness BEFORE he was called - (burning bush).
See Hebrews - which says Moses left the glory of Egypt to suffer with the people of the Lord. - - -
Do you think the Bible is inspired? - -Yes or No?
Was the writer of the book of Hebrews inspired?
See 40 years in the wilderness BEFORE he was called - (burning bush).
See Hebrews - which says Moses left the glory of Egypt to suffer with the people of the Lord. - - -
Do you think the Bible is inspired? - -Yes or No?
Was the writer of the book of Hebrews inspired?