 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/16/2002 8:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all-
I’m trying to work issues involved in Rom. 9 (discussed at great length here some time ago) into a dialogue between Paul and his imaginary opponent in Rom. 9. I’d appreciate any help.
Paul and his Jewish opponent in Romans 9
Paul: My heart is broken for the Jewish people. In spite of their history and the advantages they possess, they are not saved. Gentiles have believed in droves! But my own people have largely missed the boat.
Jew: Looks to me like God hasn’t kept his promise. I mean, he chose US, Israel, the Jews, to be his own special people. He promised to bring US salvation. Surely God grants salvation to his special people, those who are Jews by birth and who keep the law God gave us.
Paul: Actually, the present state of affairs—Gentiles believing in droves and Jews largely alienated—is perfectly compatible with what God has promised the Jews.
Jew: How so? We’re Jews by birth, we keep the Law, and for this we’re OUT and they’re IN?
Paul: Don’t be so surprised. You guys are out and they’re in because they believe and you don’t. There’s nothing new here. No change in plans and no betrayal of promise on God’s part. He has been dealing with humanity on the same basis from the get-go.
Jew: And what basis might THAT be if not physical descent from Abraham and keeping the Law of Moses?
Paul: Faith! Just having faith in God’s promise, like Abraham. Abandoning everything else, whether it’s your physical descent from Abraham or your great record at keeping the Law of Moses, and trusting in the one God sent to save us, Jesus.
Jew: Go on.
Paul: Gentiles don’t have to become Jews, keep the Jewish law, or be circumcised in order to share in the salvation that the Messiah brings. In fact, neither do Jews. I’m not criticizing the Law or physical descent from Abraham, or the Scriptures themselves. These are all great things. But salvation doesn’t travel on the twin tracks of “lineage” and “Law.” Never did. So possessing them doesn’t obligate God to save you. They were supposed to make trusting Jesus the natural next step. Instead, you made them a substitute for a relationship of loving trust in God based on abandoning confidence in religious accomplishments and national identity.
Jew: But God chose us. How can those he chose be OUT while others who were not chosen be IN?
Paul: Look, God’s choice of us as a nation, with all the stuff that came with that—circumcision, the Law, the Scriptures, etc.—was meant to encourage and maintain FAITH and not the sort of religious self-righteousness that you boast in now.
Jew: That’s just not fair. God links up his purposes for the world to our nation, to Abraham’s descendants, and to Moses’ law, and then when the Messiah comes he tosses all this aside and offers salvation without discrimination to all the uncircumcised, lawless Gentiles while WE who play by the rules God gave are alienated?
Paul: But you’re not playing by the rules. The rule is “trust in God.” And that rule was around before the Law of Moses. God can save anybody he wants just because they believe in Jesus without being circumcised or keeping the Law of Moses.
Jew: Where did you even come up with such an idea?
Paul: How about the Jewish Scriptures? I already showed you from the life of Abraham that God has always saved on the basis of faith. That’s nothing new. So now let me see if I can help you accept God’s right to make such decisions. How about Jacob and Esau?
Jew: Now you’re talking.
Paul: Alright. You feel that your physical descent as a Jew and your righteous law-keeping somehow obligate God to save you because God was the one to established these in the first place?
Jew: Right.
Paul: And, furthermore, you now contest the idea that God grants salvation to Gentiles who don’t convert to Judaism, who don’t submit to circumcision or conform their lifestyle to the law of Moses?
Jew: Right.
Paul: And, lastly, to top it all off, the idea that Jews who ARE circumcised and who DO keep the laws God gave might not be saved clearly involves God in a breach of contract, a contract God established. And since it’s true that God doesn’t lie or break covenant, the gospel message that Gentiles could be saved apart from the covenants of circumcision and Law and that Jews might NOT be saved in spite of their possessing these is clearly wrong.
Jew: Perfectly said.
Paul: OK, let me ask you a question: Did God have a right to freely choose our forefathers from among the nations as his special people? Doesn’t God have the right to make his own decisions without having to ask for your and anybody else’s approval?
Jew: Now you’re talking!
Paul: And if God wants to determine that faith alone and not lineage or law-keeping will be the sole basis upon which he saves people, doesn’t he have the right to do so?
Jew: <Silence>
Paul: Look at our own history! Before Jacob and Esau were even born, what did God tell their mother?
Jew: That the older would serve the younger.
Paul: Exactly. God freely chose to make Jacob the father of our nation and not Esau. Did God have to ask Rebecca’s permission?
Jew: No.
Paul: Did God’s choice of Jacob over Esau depend upon physical descent from Isaac?
Jew: Well, no.
Paul: Why not?
Jew: Because they BOTH had the same lineage!
Paul: Right. How about law-keeping and personal righteousness? Did God choose to make of Jacob rather than Esau a nation because Jacob was a keeper of the law while Esau was not?
Jew: Well, no.
Paul: How do you know?
Jew: Because God chose to make a nation out of Jacob before he was born, before either he or Esau did anything good or bad.
Paul: Good, so you agree that God is free to make a nation out of Jacob and not Esau without reference to their lineage or good works?
Jew: <hesitatingly> OK.
Paul: Then why do you oppose God’s right to choose to make faith, apart from lineage and law-keeping, the basis upon which he saves people? The choices are perfectly analogous.
Jew: Well, eh.
Paul: See, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that God’s choice to make a nation out of Jacob and not Esau before they were born means God chose to “save” Jacob and not Esau.
Jew: Of course.
Paul: But that’s not what God said to Rebecca. All God said was “The older will serve the younger.” This looks very much like a choice of who to build a nation from, that’s all.
Jew: <Silence>
Paul: Now, since you believe God’s choice of Jacob was a choice to “save” Jacob, you believe therefore that God’s choice of Jacob’s descendants was a choice to “save” Jacob’s descendants. Isn’t that what you’re really saying?
Jew: It sure makes sense.
Paul: Except it’s wrong. Everything I’ve been telling you from the prophets about the sinfulness of all human beings, Jews and Gentiles alike, and about Abraham’s being justified before circumcision and apart from any keeping of the Law shows that God even back then granted salvation on the basis of simple trust in his promise and nothing else. It’s God’s right to set THIS rule of relating to God that you have problems with.
Jew: And Jacob and Esau? What do you suggest THEY prove about salvation?
Paul: About salvation in particular? Nothing. We’re only looking at Jacob and Esau to establish God’s right to make free choices without reference to lineage and law-keeping? See it? Look, keep the episodes straight. It’s Abraham who shows us God saving somebody just because they believe apart from other considerations. Jacob and Esau show us something else.
Jew: And what is that?
Paul: Jacob and Esau show us God electing somebody, in this case to "nationhood," apart from lineage and law-keeping. If you affirm God’s right to make THIS decision irrespecitive of lineage and law-keeping, who are you to tell God he doesn’t also have the right to decide that faith will be the basis upon which people are justified apart from lineage and personal righteousness?
Comments?
"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman
Edited by - TGB on 11/16/2002 2:14:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/17/2002 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Seems, TGB, you've hit the issue right on the head.
quote:
Jew: But God chose us. How can those he chose be OUT while others who were not chosen be IN?
Paul: Look, God’s choice of us as a nation, with all the stuff that came with that—circumcision, the Law, the Scriptures, etc.—was meant to encourage and maintain FAITH and not the sort of religious self-righteousness that you boast in now.
In that God had been choosing peoples, nations, and rituals, God was always doing so with a foreshadowing: of presenting life and relationship between God and man THROUGH these choices to EVERYONE. Just because God had a chosen people doesn't necessitate that they be chosen to be saved and that all others are excluded. The whole point of Romans 9 is to show God's right to choose as He does, but to choose also for His purposes--THIS is the context Those purposes are clearly spelled out in the earlier chapters of Romans: to bring atonement into the world through the nation of Israel and then to everyone else. God never had intended, nor did He ever insinuate, that salvation was strictly for the Jew. It's not God's fault that they took being chosen to bear light and ran with it in the wrong direction.
I feel strongly that without those two qualifiers kept in the context (the availability of atonment and that it was to be for everyone), as they are clearly foundational to the book of Romans, there is nothing to prevent the shortcoming of construing chapter 9 as being Calvinistic or Armianistic, which seems to be as far as this passage ever gets if context is lost.
You've done nicely here, Tom,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 11/17/2002 2:51:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/18/2002 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Tom. Good job.
BTW - I think that you would like Paul Nadim Tarazi's "The New Testament Introduction: Luke and Acts" and especially his "Galatians, A Commentary." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/18/2002 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Starkman!
Just a few more thoughts on Rom. 9. You know, we discussed this all before, but I think the basic thesis argued back then (that “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” and “I will harden whom I will harden” = “I will have mercy on those who have faith” and “I will harden those who don’t have faith”) can be refined a bit. That’s what I’m working on. Don’t know if I’m on target or not.
9.1-3: Paul expresses “great sorrow” and “unceasing anguish.”I wanted to rush into the main argument of ch. 9 yesterday, but when I took some time to sit and reread it, I couldn’t get past vv. 1-3. What kind of love is this? Incredible. Assuming the deterministic claim that God is pleased to predetermine the salvation of the few and pleased to overlook the many, what would prompt Paul to feel sorrow and anguish over those God himself is not pleased to grant salvation? Why wish salvation for those God does not wish it for? Why would Paul show more compassion than God in being willing if it were possible to trade in his election in if it would secure theirs? Is Paul more or less like God in longing for the salvation of the vast majority of Jews of his day?
9.4-5: The advantages spoken of
Also spoken of in Rm. 3.1-2, these were to exercise influence on the nation in preparing them for Christ. Point is, the Jews had ‘every’ conceivable advantage over the Gentiles, ‘every’ conceivable reason for believing in Christ, yet they chose not to.
9.6-13: Has the Word of God failed?
Doe the present state of affairs—Jews in unbelief and Gentiles enjoying salvation—suggest that God has failed to keep his promise to the patriarchs regarding the blessings of the promised Messiah?
Paul’s answer to this question is basically “God never promised what you claim, namely, that salvation would come to every Jew by virtue of physical lineage or law-keeping.”
Let me see if I can get a thought out of my head that I’m having here. Paul’s argument in vv. 7-13 suggests a finality of sorts with regard to understanding God’s promises to Israel and the present state of their unbelief. In other words, Paul appears to be drawing a line at the state of Jewish unbelief in his day and saying “There’s nothing inconsistent here with God’s promises to Israel,” which I think entails that if things all ended right then and there, no promise of God regarding the salvation of Jews would be unfulfilled. God’s promises to Israel (viz., the “word of God” in v. 6) together with all the blessings Paul has just listed in 9.4-5, require no ‘future’ fulfillment that might suggest the present state of Israel’s unbelief is a temporary lull in the program. Anybody see this?
Might an upshot of this affect the way we interpret 11.25-26 where many believe Paul envisions a future ingathering in mass of Jews to faith in Christ in fulfillment of God’s covenant with the Jews. If Paul believed in such a future ingathering of Jews to faith in Christ, and if he believed such an ingathering was promised by God’s covenant with Israel, would Paul not mention this in 9.6-7 in answer to the objection that the present state of Jewish unbelief suggests God is not keeping his word? Shouldn’t 9.6’s “But it is not as though the word of God had failed,” be followed at some point with “Well, it certainly looks like that now, but just wait. A great revival is coming in which God will save all Jews as you correctly expect.” If Paul expected such a revival in fulfillment of God’s covenant promise to Jews, he could hardly defend the present state of Jewish unbelief as compatible with Scripture.
“Isaac” and “Jacob”: Historical and theological figures
“Isaac” in v. 7b is both the historical physical person and “faith in God’s promise.” Isaac represents “faith/promise.” When God says “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named,” he is saying, “Through faith in my promise shall your descendants be named.” These two—the choice of a particular lineage and the choice to save on the grounds of faith alone—are distinct and yet bound together. I don’t think we were careful enough in arguing this last year. The two are bound together in as much as God wants his free choice of Isaac and Jacob to provide a clear and ever present reminder of how God saves people even though the choices of Isaac and Jacob are not in themselves choices to ‘save’ these individuals but rather make out of them a nation. God wants the history of his relationship with Israel to predispose Jews to faith, and so God grounds the election which created the nation in the same unconditional freedom characteristic of his determining the basis of salvation. This is where the confusion often comes.
But here we must walk carefully. Paul does indeed argue from the one (the historical election of persons in forming a nation) to the other (the particular salvation of individuals), but it’s important to note precisely what is on either end. On the one end is God’s free and unconditional election of a nation and the individuals who establish that nation. On the other end? Here the road diverges. Some argue that on this other end we have God’s free and unconditional election of some for salvation and others for reprobation, in which case Paul is believed to be arguing that ‘just as God unconditionally elected Isaac and Jacob for nationhood, ‘in this same way (i.e., before they’re born and without regard for anything in them, faith included) God unconditionally elects some for salvation and others not.
Paul’s imaginary objectors want to deny the distinction between the historical and it’s soteriological implications and maintain that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau, for example, IS a choice to unconditionally save Jacob and not Esau. Election to nationhood IS election to salvation.
I suggest that on this other end we posit not “God’s choice to save some and not others,” but rather “God’s choice to make faith the basis upon which people are saved.” (We said this last year of course. I’m trying to sweep up the hair on the floor from having made the cut back then.) This entails that election to salvation is, as R. Shank argued over thirty years ago, ‘corporate’, ‘objective’, and ‘in Christ’.
Paul is not arguing in ch. 9 with Isaac and Jacob what he argued in ch. 4 with Abraham. I find determinists I talk to read 9 as if it was 4. In ch. 4 Paul is establishing the doctrine of justification by faith. Abraham is an example of God saving somebody on the basis of faith alone, not choosing to save him before he was born and thus irregardless of his faith. In ch. 9 Paul, however, Paul is defending this doctrine against the claim that it involves God in a breach of contract, against the mistake notion that God is obligated to save Jews because they’re Jews. It is against THIS claim that Paul now calls upon Isaac and Jacob as examples of God’s right to act irrespective of lineage and law-keeping. The choice of Isaac and Jacob doesn’t HAVE to be a choice to “salvation” in order for the choice to teach us something about how God saves. Why? Because, like I said, the historical choices and actions of God with regard to forming the nation are designed to reflect the same sort of approach God takes with salvation. They’re based on the same unconditional freedom of God. Since these choices are designed by God to predispose Jews to abandoning their lineage and their Law in relating to God, Paul argues that in God’s free and unconditional choice of Isaac and Jacob for nationhood is revealed God’s right also to freely and unconditionally establish the basis upon which salvation is enjoyed.
Summary: In vv. 6-13 God’s choice of Isaac and Jacob is fundamentally a choice to nationhood, but it nevertheless establishes God’s right to act unilaterally in establishing faith as the sole basis of salvation because the historical choice to nationhood is designed by God to demonstrate God’s right to set the rules of engagement for divine-human relationships as he wishes. What came out of Abraham in ch. 4 was: The divine-human relationship is predicated upon faith in God’s promise. What comes out of Paul’s use of Isaac and Jacob is: God has the right to act this way.
9.14-18: Is God unjust then?
How this question is understood is crucial to getting the rest of vv. 14-18 right. More on this later.
quote:
BTW - I think that you would like Paul Nadim Tarazi's "The New Testament Introduction: Luke and Acts" and especially his "Galatians, A Commentary."
Al-
Oh yeah. I have his commentary on Galatians. Used it in teaching. It's all marked up. What I've read of him I like. He pops back into Beirut here (where he's from) every once and a while. Haven't met him yet.
Tom
"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman
Edited by - TGB on 11/18/2002 4:10:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/18/2002 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: Oh yeah. I have his commentary on Galatians. Used it in teaching. It's all marked up. What I've read of him I like. He pops back into Beirut here (where he's from) every once and a while. Haven't met him yet.
I have three friends who had him for a teacher at SVOTS.
Also, I had great fun on Bob's site using material from those two books. (Bob just figured that Tarazi didn't know Greek.)
Al
=====================================================
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/18/2002 4:10:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/20/2002 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Some of my thoughts on this topic.
quote:
Paul appears to be drawing a line at the state of Jewish unbelief in his day and saying “There’s nothing inconsistent here with God’s promises to Israel,” which I think entails that if things all ended right then and there, no promise of God regarding the salvation of Jews would be unfulfilled. God’s promises to Israel (viz., the “word of God” in v. 6) together with all the blessings Paul has just listed in 9.4-5, require no ‘future’ fulfillment that might suggest the present state of Israel’s unbelief is a temporary lull in the program. Anybody see this?
Might an upshot of this affect the way we interpret 11.25-26 where many believe Paul envisions a future ingathering in mass of Jews to faith in Christ in fulfillment of God’s covenant with the Jews. If Paul believed in such a future ingathering of Jews to faith in Christ, and if he believed such an ingathering was promised by God’s covenant with Israel, would Paul not mention this in 9.6-7 in answer to the objection that the present state of Jewish unbelief suggests God is not keeping his word? Shouldn’t 9.6’s “But it is not as though the word of God had failed,” be followed at some point with “Well, it certainly looks like that now, but just wait. A great revival is coming in which God will save all Jews as you correctly expect.” If Paul expected such a revival in fulfillment of God’s covenant promise to Jews, he could hardly defend the present state of Jewish unbelief as compatible with Scripture.
After reading chapter 9, particularly vs. 6-13, I don't see Paul stating any type of finality except one: God will pick and choose people for His own purposes; and He did so in the past (with regard to promises for Israel) so that "God's purposes in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls."
Further, that Paul didn't mention the final gathering of Israel in chapter 9 is only to say that he wasn't ready to do so; the theology had a few more steps of develpment. But that Paul finally does mention the other side of the promises--all Israel will be saved, that specifically being Jews in this context--is, I believe, the finality. It would seem therefore that there were still promises to be kept to Israel. One only has to look at the OT to see this; however, none of these OT promises conveyed limited conceptualization to which the Jews clung, circumscribing salvation only between God and themselves.
quote:
But here we must walk carefully. Paul does indeed argue from the one (the historical election of persons in forming a nation) to the other (the particular salvation of individuals), but it’s important to note precisely what is on either end. On the one end is God’s free and unconditional election of a nation and the individuals who establish that nation. On the other end? Here the road diverges. Some argue that on this other end we have God’s free and unconditional election of some for salvation and others for reprobation, in which case Paul is believed to be arguing that ‘just as God unconditionally elected Isaac and Jacob for nationhood, ‘in this same way (i.e., before they’re born and without regard for anything in them, faith included) God unconditionally elects some for salvation and others not.
My interpretation of the context here involves God, Israel, and Gentiles; all who are on earth. The context speaks of God having chosen Israel, but knew long ago that they would not obey Him (latter chapters of Deuteronomy. Can't remember the exact reference, but it's either in or right before the song of Moses; he states something to the effect "But I know you won't obey Him . . .".) This would be used to bring fullness of salvation to all (which God has already foreordained/predestined.)
quote:
I suggest that on this other end we posit not “God’s choice to save some and not others,” but rather “God’s choice to make faith the basis upon which people are saved.” (We said this last year of course. I’m trying to sweep up the hair on the floor from having made the cut back then.) This entails that election to salvation is, as R. Shank argued over thirty years ago, ‘corporate’, ‘objective’, and ‘in Christ’.
Very true. Even more than God making faith the basis upon which people are saved, God doing all of the choosing is the ONLY basis upon which God deemed as to how to interact with us. Any other basis of interaction for the purposes of relationship finds man constantly turning to himself with his own ability to meet with God, if he hasn't already thought that he himself is a god. So the purposes of God's election, be it Jew, Gentile, cat, dog or what have you, has already been predetermined! There has already been a predestination based on the premise that man is already disqualified to interact with God by any effort of man's own; ALL correspondance with God must come from His election process.
quote:
. . . the historical choices and actions of God with regard to forming the nation are designed to reflect the same sort of approach God takes with salvation. They’re based on the same unconditional freedom of God. Since these choices are designed by God to predispose Jews to abandoning their lineage and their Law in relating to God, Paul argues that in God’s free and unconditional choice of Isaac and Jacob for nationhood is revealed God’s right also to freely and unconditionally establish the basis upon which salvation is enjoyed. [emphasis Keith's]
The opening statement, I'm thinking, might be modified: the same sort of approach God takes to salvation is designed to reflect the larger scope; the historical choices and actions of God with regard to forming nations, particularly Israel (in this context.).
It is in EVERYTHING in regard to any involvment between God and man that God's unconditional freedom is the foundation. I think this is the front-runner to salvation understood in the context of election and in all the dealings God has with mankind. This isn't necessarily argued in Romans in this broad of scope, but it is argued within the Scriptures in whole second to nothing.
quote:
Summary: In vv. 6-13 God’s choice of Isaac and Jacob is fundamentally a choice to nationhood, but it nevertheless establishes God’s right to act unilaterally in establishing faith as the sole basis of salvation because the historical choice to nationhood is designed by God to demonstrate God’s right to set the rules of engagement for divine-human relationships as he wishes. [emphasis Keith's] What came out of Abraham in ch. 4 was: The divine-human relationship is predicated upon faith in God’s promise. What comes out of Paul’s use of Isaac and Jacob is: God has the right to act this way.
Bingo!
Nice job, Tom!
(Dang, dude, you're getting me excited about doing some posts on what's in my head with regard to the book of Romans! I gotta do some posts! I'll look forward to your feedback.)
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 11/20/2002 2:29:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/21/2002 12:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman-
I see your point on what I think is an upshot of 9.6-13 for 11.24-25. So you’re basically saying that 11.24-25 does foretell of a mass, end-time ingathering of Jews “as a nation” to faith in Christ and that this IS part of Paul’s answer to the question assumed in 9.6 (the question being, “Doesn’t the present state of Israel’s unbelief suggest that God has failed to keep his promises to them?”). You just don’t see that there’s any reason to suppose Paul would need to offer the answer of 11.24-25 (that answer being, “Yes, God will save most Jews at the close of this age. Just wait. You’ll see.”) in ch. 11 and not in ch. 9. Right?
I still find this problematic. I think this undermines the answer Paul gives in 9.6-13 to this objection. If Isaac and Jacob really DO show us what Paul argues they show us (viz., that God has always saved Jews and Gentiles on the basis of faith) then there can be nothing about Israel’s present state of unbelief as it stands that leaves God’s promises for the salvation of Jews unfulfilled. Paul’s Jewish objector looks around at the state of Israel’s unbelief and says, “This is not consistent with God’s promises to us.” Paul answers in 9.6-13, “No, it’s all perfectly consistent with God’s promises. God never promised what you think—that the entire nation of Jews would be saved.” But if 11.24-25 are interpreted as foretelling the fulfillment of God’s covenantal obligation to save “all Israel”, the nation, in a massive, end-time, ingathering of Jews to faith in Christ, then it IS true that there is in the state of Israel’s unbelief at the time Paul writes grounds for his objector’s claim that “If THIS is it, then God’s failed to keep his promise!”
What I’m saying that if Paul holds out in 11.24-25 hope for a nation-wide, mass ingathering of Jews to faith in Christ in the future, then there’s no real need to argue in 9.6-13 that the present state of national unbelief is consistent with God’s promises to Israel. It’s one thing to argue that Paul can return after two or three chapters to continue his answer to some question, but it’s another thing to see him returning after two chapters to give a different answer, one that weakens the answer already given and even makes it unnecessary.
And then:
quote:
The opening statement, I'm thinking, might be modified: the same sort of approach God takes to salvation is designed to reflect the larger scope; the historical choices and actions of God with regard to forming nations, particularly Israel (in this context.).
It is in EVERYTHING in regard to any involvement between God and man that God's unconditional freedom is the foundation. I think this is the front-runner to salvation understood in the context of election and in all the dealings God has with mankind.
I agree that God’s unconditional free is the foundation of everything that pertains to the God-human relationship. But I think Paul is arguing FROM what he knows his Jewish readers agree upon (viz., that God’s choice of Isaac and Jacob were not conditioned upon lineage or law-keeping) TO what his Jewish readers disagree with (viz., that God’s salvation of Jews and Gentiles has absolutely nothing to do with lineage or law-keeping). This is why it appears to me that “…historical choices and actions of God with regard to forming the nation are designed to reflect the same sort of approach God takes with salvation” rather than the other way around.
You turn this whole thing around and say, “That God saves apart from lineage and law-keeping is designed to reflect the choices and actions of God in forming Israel as a nation.” I’m not sure how this can be the case. It makes the issue of disagreement between Paul and his objector (and thus the thing Paul attempts to prove) whether or not Israel was constituted as a nation by an unconditional choice of God; then in order to prove THIS Paul thus makes use of something he and his objector already agree on, namely, that Jews and Gentiles are equally saved apart from lineage and law-keeping. But things run in precisely the opposite direction don’t they?
quote:
(Dang, dude, you're getting me excited about doing some posts on what's in my head with regard to the book of Romans! I gotta do some posts!
Sever it up dude! I’m interested. I don’t know what the group in Toronto will come up with in response to the question “What do we [open theists] do next?” but I hope it includes the choice to publish, publish, publish. I think more lay-level stuff like GOP will play an important role as well as higher end stuff. On both levels though open theists should come up with biblical treatments of key passages and doctrines, even some systematic theologies that are readable for the guy in the pew.
Tom
"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/22/2002 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
So you're basically saying that 11.24-25 does foretell of a mass, end-time ingathering of Jews "as a nation" to faith in Christ
Yes. If not a mass gather, a gradual gathering one way or the other.
Romans 11:25-26 - "A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved . . . ."
Romans 11:30-32 - "Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may22 receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience so that he may show mercy to all."
I think Paul's point here is to answer the question as to WHY God did what He did with Israel; that all may find mercy. Romans 9, however, seems to address WHAT God did: utilize His right to choose according to His purposes. It's just two different issues being addressed inside of the broader issue salvation of Jews and Gentiles.
quote:
and that this IS part of Paul's answer to the question assumed in 9.6 (the question being, "Doesn't the present state of Israel's unbelief suggest that God has failed to keep his promises to them?").
No. I was simply addressing the issue of all Israel being saved as being in Paul's mind, but not yet necessary to be addressed in Romans 9. I wasn't thinking "All Israel shall be saved" as Paul's argument in Romans 9; rather it is "It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel", the issue being that God has not failed to keep His word because many of Israel had already been saved when Paul wrote Romans. And there is, as you've brought out, the issue, too, (in Romans 9) that God had chosen Israel completely through His own process of electorial choice; if the Jews understood this half of the teeter-tauter, how could they, then, argue that God hasn't kept His word.
quote:
If Isaac and Jacob really DO show us what Paul argues they show us (viz., that God has always saved Jews and Gentiles on the basis of faith) then there can be nothing about Israel's present state of unbelief as it stands that leaves God's promises for the salvation of Jews unfulfilled.
Unless there's OT Scripture to believe otherwise. I think there is. I think that the Scriptures are so strong in this regard that it is all too easily construed to be ONLY Jews can be saved. I think to some extent that the thrust of Paul's argument in Romans 9 is with this in mind, but it doesn't come out in full fight until chapter 11. For he must first deal with the need for everyone to understand that God first possesses the right to choose how He will, when He will and what whom He will. But you know the question is still lingering in the Roman's mind: "So . . . what's the deal, then, with Israel. Is that God just doesn't have anything else in mind for them? It's all over for them?" I believe this kind of questioning existed because of the way Paul enters into the topic in Romans 11 - "So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew!" He then goes on to talk about the future of Israel; it's not over yet.
In essence:
Romans 9: God saves by first choosing how, when and whom He will save. After all, He is God. He has the right to do so.
Romans 10: They've had the opportunity but won't accept it; they can't seem to come to understand that it is by faith in a completed work that is only words away from leading them to relationship with God.
Romans 11: So, has God rejected them? No, He's just not through with them yet. They'll come around, one day. All Israel will be saved.
The catch: how many is "all"? Is it all in a generation? Is it all in an unknown span of time? Is it all at a given period in history? I myself think that it's on-going, however, I think the language in 11:25-26 is specific, in this case, to a gathering of some sort towards the end of this age.
I had said:
The opening statement, I'm thinking, might be modified: the same sort of approach God takes to salvation is designed to reflect the larger scope; the historical choices and actions of God with regard to forming nations, particularly Israel (in this context.).
It is in EVERYTHING in regard to any involvement between God and man that God's unconditional freedom is the foundation. I think this is the front-runner to salvation understood in the context of election and in all the dealings God has with mankind.
And you responded:
quote:
I agree that God's unconditional free is the foundation of everything that pertains to the God-human relationship. But I think Paul is arguing FROM what he knows his Jewish readers agree upon (viz., that God's choice of Isaac and Jacob were not conditioned upon lineage or law-keeping) TO what his Jewish readers disagree with (viz., that God's salvation of Jews and Gentiles has absolutely nothing to do with lineage or law-keeping). This is why it appears to me that "…historical choices and actions of God with regard to forming the nation are designed to reflect the same sort of approach God takes with salvation" rather than the other way around.
Remember, I was just trying to see a more panoramic view of the whole issue in Romans 9-11. I probably didn't make that as clear as I could have and shouldn't have left you with the feeling that your view should have or could have been modified. I jumped from your issue in Romans to something of my own thoughts, (which is why I was saying later that this conversation is really stimulating me to want to post some stuff on Romans!)
Yes, in the context of Romans 9, I agree with you. I was stepping back, however (didn't say that at the time--sorry!) and thinking, "Hmm, God seems to have used His process of election and atonement for salvation to speak of the ever-larger foundation of His perfect being in relationship to our imperfect being. Putting the issue of salvation (apart, now, from the context of Romans 9) over the foundation of who and what God is and how he MUST work with us--in a context different than it would have been prior to the fall--would backwards. But this is a different subject, so I hope I've cleaned that up a tad!
Rats, school's out, the wife's waiting for me, and I got to go!
For the elements of salvific manifestation!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/22/2002 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I think it is interesting, as Tarazi  points out, that Abraham and company did not inherit the land. What their true hope was in was different. And in the NT the truely catholic scope of the Church became evident.
Fred | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|