 |
| 
micah4
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 11/1/2004 5:22 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I'm just wondering, if in the open view God does not know who will believe and who will not ahead of time, then how do you understand 1 Peter 1:2 speaking of those who are "elect according to the foreknowledge of god the Father". If God does not foreknow who will believe, then in what sense are believers elect according to his foreknowledge? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/1/2004 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by micah4
I'm just wondering, if in the open view God does not know who will believe and who will not ahead of time, then how do you understand 1 Peter 1:2 speaking of those who are "elect according to the foreknowledge of god the Father". If God does not foreknow who will believe, then in what sense are believers elect according to his foreknowledge?
The view most consistent with the Open View is that of corporate election, which actually is a major viewpoint within Arminianism. In the corporate model, that which is chosen is an indeterminate group, not a particularistic set of individuals. Just as many individuals within the nation of Israel apostasized, and just as a Gentile could convert to Judaism if he so desired, and yet Israel as a group is spoken of as "the elect," even so in the New Covenant, the body of Christ which is the Church is spoken of as "the elect," while not necessarily specifying each particular individual who would ever make up that group in time.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
micah4
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 11/1/2004 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm familiar with the corporate election position- I guess my question moreso is then what is the significance of the phrase "according to his foreknowledge" when this position is combined with the assertions of open theism?
It seems to me that if "according to his foreknowledge" simply means in accordance with his intention to elect a people, his plan to elect the church corporately in Christ, then how is "according to his foreknowledge" any different than "according to his purpose"?
Even outside of a foreknowledge of election, it would seem that also in the general case that if God only foreknows with certainty that which he himself intends to bring about (or that which is causally determined), then the distinction between "foreknowing" and "foredetermining" collapses altogether.
From a traditional arminian perspective, the use of "foreknow" certainly contributes something additional above and beyond what God himself "predetermines". God "foreknows" the free choices of his creatures even though he does not predetermine them. But if God does not foreknow the truly free choices of his creatures, then the content of his foreknowledge collapses to be identical to that which he predetermines.
If that is the case, then it would seem there no distinction between what God "foreknows" and what he "predetermines"; and to say that something is "according to God's foreknowledge" would be no different than saying it is "according to his purpose" or "according to his counsel" or what have you. Admittedly I'm posting this just as it comes to mind, but I'm suspicious of the conclusion that scripture knows no distinction between "foreknowing" and "predetermining".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 11/2/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Could one combine the Arminian idea of corporate election with Barth’s doctrine of universal election in Christ? Thus (per the former), election does not refer to particular individuals, but rather (per the latter) election refers to all individuals. Apparently, Barth never indicated whether or not his idea of universal election was intended to imply Universalism. However, Barth does say that, though all are elect in Christ, we must choose to live as one of the elect. So perhaps universal election is compatible with an OV understanding of freedom, etc.
If Barth is right, then perhaps the meaning of the election passages has more to do with what we’re elected for rather than referring to separate groups of people (whether corporately or individually).
Perhaps, then, we could also say that "foreknowledge" has more to do with what we're elected for (rather than referring to separate groups of people).
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/2/2004 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
I think Peter may make it more specific than just election coming under God's foreknowledge, "strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" may also come under the heading of God's foreknowledge here, which makes it apply more probably to these specific individuals.
As far as corporate election...
Acts 22:14 Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.'
This implies God chose Paul before speaking to him, God chose him, not only to hear his word, but to believe! "To know his will." So this is individual election.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Eeyore
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 11/3/2004 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Acts 22:14 Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.'
This implies God chose Paul before speaking to him, God chose him, not only to hear his word, but to believe! "To know his will." So this is individual election.
No, it says God chose for Paul to "know God's will", a choice for a task.
Paul had already made his choice of salvation back in Acts 9:5 when he said, "Who are You, Lord?"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/3/2004 2:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JET
Could one combine the Arminian idea of corporate election with Barth’s doctrine of universal election in Christ? Thus (per the former), election does not refer to particular individuals, but rather (per the latter) election refers to all individuals. Apparently, Barth never indicated whether or not his idea of universal election was intended to imply Universalism. However, Barth does say that, though all are elect in Christ, we must choose to live as one of the elect. So perhaps universal election is compatible with an OV understanding of freedom, etc.
If Barth is right, then perhaps the meaning of the election passages has more to do with what we’re elected for rather than referring to separate groups of people (whether corporately or individually).
Perhaps, then, we could also say that "foreknowledge" has more to do with what we're elected for (rather than referring to separate groups of people).
JET-
I am not familar with Barth. Is there maybe a link or book you could suggest so that I could read his works?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 11/3/2004 3:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock, what little I know of Barth is from what I've read about him in books by other writers and miscellaneous articles on the internet. I had been trying to learn more about Barth's view of election when I saw this thread. He was a Swiss theologian (Reformed) who reacted against liberal protestant theology in the early 20th century. Today's American evangelicals are mostly critical of Barth's "neo-orthodox" doctrine of revelation. However, it is not uncommon to find Barth referred to as the most influential theologian of the last century. Do a Google search and you'll find plenty of articles.
Btw, Doc's view of hell is heavily influenced by Barth (see Satan and the Problem of Evil).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/3/2004 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by micah4
I'm familiar with the corporate election position- I guess my question moreso is then what is the significance of the phrase "according to his foreknowledge" when this position is combined with the assertions of open theism?
It seems to me that if "according to his foreknowledge" simply means in accordance with his intention to elect a people, his plan to elect the church corporately in Christ, then how is "according to his foreknowledge" any different than "according to his purpose"?
I think these two different phrases mean essentially the same thing.
quote:
Even outside of a foreknowledge of election, it would seem that also in the general case that if God only foreknows with certainty that which he himself intends to bring about (or that which is causally determined), then the distinction between "foreknowing" and "foredetermining" collapses altogether.
From a traditional arminian perspective, the use of "foreknow" certainly contributes something additional above and beyond what God himself "predetermines". God "foreknows" the free choices of his creatures even though he does not predetermine them. But if God does not foreknow the truly free choices of his creatures, then the content of his foreknowledge collapses to be identical to that which he predetermines.
If that is the case, then it would seem there no distinction between what God "foreknows" and what he "predetermines"; and to say that something is "according to God's foreknowledge" would be no different than saying it is "according to his purpose" or "according to his counsel" or what have you. Admittedly I'm posting this just as it comes to mind, but I'm suspicious of the conclusion that scripture knows no distinction between "foreknowing" and "predetermining".
If prior to his initial creative act, God had precisely exact knowledge of each and every consequence of that initial creative act, then there is no difference in him foreknowing (in the traditional sense) something or predestinating/foredetermining something. In the conventional foreknowledge view, every event subsequent to creation is directly attributable to God, especially because He knew precisely what would happen after he created, to infinity.
Blessings in Christ,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/3/2004 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JET
Could one combine the Arminian idea of corporate election with Barth’s doctrine of universal election in Christ? Thus (per the former), election does not refer to particular individuals, but rather (per the latter) election refers to all individuals. Apparently, Barth never indicated whether or not his idea of universal election was intended to imply Universalism. However, Barth does say that, though all are elect in Christ, we must choose to live as one of the elect. So perhaps universal election is compatible with an OV understanding of freedom, etc.
Hi JET,
(By the way, good to hear from you, friend. Hope all is well with you).
I think you bring up a very good point. The way I might tie Barth's view in with the corporate view is that in the corporate view, everybody is potentially (able to be) saved, and therefore everybody is potentially of the elect.
quote:
If Barth is right, then perhaps the meaning of the election passages has more to do with what we’re elected for rather than referring to separate groups of people (whether corporately or individually).
Perhaps, then, we could also say that "foreknowledge" has more to do with what we're elected for (rather than referring to separate groups of people).
Yes, I would agree with that. Election is to something--that we might be holy and without blame before Him in love.
Don't know if that's what you're looking for, but that's the way I have thought of election long before I ever heard of Open Theism.
Happy to be Chosen In Him,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/3/2004 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Acts 22:14 Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.'
Lee: God chose him, not only to hear his word, but to believe! "To know his will." So this is individual election.
Eeyore: No, it says God chose for Paul to "know God's will", a choice for a task.
Paul had already made his choice of salvation back in Acts 9:5 when he said, "Who are You, Lord?"
Well, however you place the time of "know his will," this phrase certainly requires salvation! Then I would note that "chose you" in "chose you to know his will and see the Righteous One" cannot mean "chose you corporately," for not everyone is chosen corporately, to have a vision of Jesus, thus we have a reference to salvation, yet the choice here must be of Paul as an individual, and thus individual election…
Also, Paul was converted at his baptism, not before, I think:
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
Implying that Paul was not cleansed from his sins, until this time...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 11/3/2004 3:57 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE: Hi JET, (By the way, good to hear from you, friend. Hope all is well with you).
JET: Thanks, JEE. All is well, but it may not be for long if I don't leave the office soon and get home to my wife.
JEE: The way I might tie Barth's view in with the corporate view is that in the corporate view, everybody is potentially (able to be) saved, and therefore everybody is potentially of the elect.
JET: Here's my thoughts (not yet fully developed; interested in your feedback): If the meaning of the election passages has to do with who is elect, then we have to ask what's the point? Why use the language of predestination and election unless to say there is something inherently special about the elect as opposed to some other group? And why all the fuss about the elect if its just refering to an unspecified , corporate, potential group? On the other hand, if the meaning of the election passages has to do with the what, why and how of election, i.e., all of the implications of God saying "Yes" to humans (in Christ), then it seems natural for Paul and Peter to remind the Church of their election in Christ (even if it has nothing to do with them in particular as opposed to some other group).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/4/2004 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's consider a few things in Romans 9-11.
Romans 9:10-13 "Jacob and Esau"
The question is has God cast off Israel, tossed them aside?
The passage Paul quotes from is Malachi 1:1-2. The issue of these verses is not two individuals, but two lineages and, particularly, two nations. That's very important to see. The issue isn't about God loving or hating individuals; it is about God's right to choose one over another FOR HIS PURPOSES. Not whimsically, not arbitrarily, but for God's purposes.
As to the "hated" and "loved" language, consider Mark 14:26 - “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." Obviously, we are not to "hate" people. Further, Scripture tells us to even love our neighbors.
Romans 9:14-16 "Mercy upon whom I will show mercy"
The context eliminates determinism; it is God working with, not against, Moses (Ex 33:19). The context is Moses having negotiated with God to spare Israel; they are a stubborn people. Then Moses asks God to prove His committment by intimately showing Himself to Moses. God agrees and says, And the Lord said to Moses, “This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.” Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
This is far from being the brow-beater passage to prove that God just happens to show mercy to some and doesn't show mercy to others. The passage in its context teaches that God is merciful to those who will repent and is not so merciful to those who will not repent. We'll see Paul develope this theme even more as Romans continues.
Romans 9:17-18 "Pharoah’s heart hardened"
The key passage in the Old testament for Paul's reference to Pharoah starts in Exodus 3. In verses 18-20 God declares that He knows Pharoah won't break without a strong compelling arm to force the issue. Nothing in the passage teaches that God "made" Pharoah this way. That's not Paul's point either. Exodus 4:21, 9:34-5 and 14:4,7, which continue the language of God hardening Pharoah, simply show that God will harden a heart that is already hardened; God simply works with what He's given: Mercy to those who will repent; hardening to those who won't. This suits God's purposes. Again, it's not whimsical or arbitrary; Paul's point (in view of the question about whether God's cast off Israel) is that there's a clear purpose God has in dealing with men in the manner He does.
Romans 9:19-21 "The potter and the clay"
Ok, here's the real classic passage used by many to try and prove that God makes some honorable and dishonorable before the people are even born. The passage, in fact, teaches the opposite!
From Jere 18:1-4, Paul alludes to what Jeremiah wrote as he himself was directed to go to the Potters house to watch and learn. Remember, Jeremiah's already prophecied doom to Israel; they are a stubborn and rebellious people, they are! God tells Jeremiah that just as the potter is able to fashion clay, the clay can go bad. It will become useless if it keeps doing this...just as Israel has done. BUT, if Israel would repent, cannot God repent? Cannot God choose to do good to Israel, just like a potter can fashion clay for good? But if Israel will not repent, the potter fashions the clay to dishonor and distruction. THAT'S the point in Jeremiah. Far from being deterministic, the passage teaches the flexibility the potter has to go with the flow: mercy on those who repent, hardening on those who do not.
In all these passages so far, nothing can be construed as teaching determinism. The opposite, in fact, is taught. And, again, this is all in accord with God's purposes, which Paul hasn't gotten to yet.
Romans 9:22-33 "Israel is hardened"
Well, it's happened. Just like the potter choosing to make a vessel fit for destruction, so God has chosen to harden Israel. Not arbitrarily, but because they would not repent. Very simple.
Key verse 9:33 – Israel did not pursue righteousness by faith.
God has not made Israel, or any other nation, only so that he can harden and destroy them. And, as it has been brought out by many others, it is ridiculous to think that God has has to be patient with the ones He Himself made to be what they are!
Romans 10:1 "Paul’s prayer for Israel"
Why pray for Israel if God, Hiimself, has determined Israel’s hardening? Paul would be praying outside the will of God. And I think it was Jeremiah, wasn't it, who was praying for Israel and God told him to knock it off: God had already made His decision, and no one, come hell or high water, was going to change His mind. So Paul isn't praying for what God Himself would be determining.
Romans 11:5-10 "A remnant chosen"
More and more now the plan and purposes of God are being revealed.
Deut 29:4 God didn’t give Israel light because of their rebellion
Deut 31:16-17 God knows the people will rebel
Deut 31:26-29 same as above
Deut 32 – Moses’ "song" starts out against, because he knows Israel is not going to be faithful; not because God made them this way, but because this is the way of Israel's heart. As Isaiah 29:10-13 proclaims: The people draw near to God only with their lips; their heart is far from Him.
Romans 11:25-32 "Until the fullness of the Gentiles"
Ah, and even after all Israel has put God through, they are still loved. God will still save a remnant and is only using the hardening (His purpose!) to make them jealous by bringing in Gentiles into the flock. Man, that's love, and a far cry from determinism!
Without Election there is no mercy available! If there is no Promise, there is no Salvation! You see, we absolutely have to have Election or we are all doomed! But this Election has nothing to do with determinism; choosing some but not others, hating some and not others, showing mercy to some and not others in some whimsical or arbitary manner. Far too many verses scream out the love of God as does II Peter 3:9; God wants none to be lost but all to be saved.
Finally, a few snipits from http://pelajus.com/http://pelajus.com/ about the word "foreknow."
From Strong's Online – 4267 proginosko: foreknow, foreordain, know, know before; 1) to have knowledge before hand; 2) to foreknow; 2a) of those whom God elected to salvation; 3) to predestinate.
Proginosko occurs five times: Acts 26:5; Rom. 8:29, 11:2; I Pet 1:20; and. II Pet 3:17
In two of the five times that it is used, it is not used of God, but of men (Acts, II Pe). In those two instances, the word proginosko is used to say that men knew something before, in times past.
Instance #1
Acts 26:5 Paul is presenting his defense to Agrippa, and says that the Jews KNEW HIM BEFORE (proginosko).
Instance #2
2 Pet. 3:17 The Christians who received Peter's letter are the one who KNEW these things BEFORE.
Instance #3
Rom. 11:2 Who had proginosko, "foreknowledge," in Rom. 11:2? God. He simply KNEW BEFORE.
Instance #4
1 Pet. 1:20 Notice that the translators of the NIV say that Christ was CHOSEN BEFORE the creation of the world. God, before the foundation of the world, knew Christ. Why? Christ is God the Son, the second part of the trinity. It requires no great feat of omniscience to know someone before an event, if you are intimately acquainted with them. God the Father, BEFORE the creation of the world, KNEW Christ.
Instance #5
Rom. 8:29 Those whom God foreknew. According to Pinnock, this verse can refer to an election of a body of believers, unknown in the specific, but predetermined by the plan of God. Pinnock points to God's dealing in the past, with regard to Israel, in the Old Testament. God chose a people, the descendants of Abraham, to be His people. This is in the aggregate, not the specific, for not all who were Israel were/are saved (Rom 11:7). Just so with the New Testament. God "foreknew" a body, the church, in the aggregate, because it was His predetermined purpose to save "whosovever will." But this aggregate is not specific; it is not predeterminied who will be saved, and who will be damned. Instead, God chose to open the offer of salvation to all, and He gives the invitation to all. And all may refuse or not refuse. Nothing in this verse requires that God know ahead of time who would and would not accept His invitation. God issued a general pardon, and waits for all to accept or reject.
End of snipit (snippit, snippet...however you spell it!)
Predestination, which rides on top of Romans 9-11 and the last of Romans 8, simply cannot be interpreted deterministically, not in view of the context of the passages I've just written about. Further, the use of "foreknow" in Scripture often tends more toward an intimate "knowing" without any determination or even an idea of how long the "knowing" has been going on.
Well, for good studying,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/5/2004 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman-
Everything you posted above contradicts with the simple statement Paul makes in verse 11,
"...that the purpose of God may be remaining as a choice, not out of acts, but of Him Who is calling...".
If all that Paul speaks of in Romans 9 is how you stated,
quote:
the passage teaches the flexibility the potter has to go with the flow: mercy on those who repent
then God's actions were based on the acts of repentance or the lack of repentance, which contradicts verse 11. The context of Romans 9 is how God choices NOT ACCORDING TO ACTS, and yet we are to believe the opposite, that He instead does chose according to our obedience or not? Is repenting not an act?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/5/2004 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Lock,
Let's examine your argument more closely.
quote:
Starkman-
Everything you posted above contradicts with the simple statement Paul makes in verse 11,
"...that the purpose of God may be remaining as a choice, not out of acts, but of Him Who is calling...".
What I posted was the context of the passages I referenced in Romans and in the Old Testament. I didn't post any points other that what Paul said in the context of his letter and of the Old Testament. So let's look at verse 11 and consider the context.
The "simple statement Paul makes in verse 11," as you note, is much more than just "...that the purpose of God may be remaining as a choice, not out of acts, but of Him Who is calling...". Let's look at the context:
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” [ESV].
First, it is children of promise who are counted as offspring. Second, the promise was that Sarah would have a son. Rebecca would have twins. God chose Jacob. But this is as far as your point goes; you have not addressed why God chose Jacob! It wasn't for individual salvation--neither this passage nor the Old Testament accout has anything to do with individuals. How do I know? Read the next statement: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." This is from Malachi, who was talking about nations and peoples in regard to the larger picture; the purposes of God. And what are God's purposes in choosing as He did in the past? In order to bring all the opportunity to come to know Him. There isn't a hint, whatsoever, of individuals being chosen, much less predestination in the Romans and Old Testament passages. I'm sorry, but there just isn't. The context completely forbids that interpretation.
Go back over the verses I referenced again, look them up in the Old Testament and explain how any of them can be in regard to individuals getting saved or anything like that. The point of all God's choosing, as Paul teaches it, is to enforce the fact that though God chose Israel in the beginning, he has the right to hardent them in view of their constant rebellion, in which manner God did not make them act. So, God says, "Fine, have it your way," and He uses that hardening, in love, to bring all others to Him, eventually wishing to bring Israel to jealousy.
Again, this has nothing to do with the Augustinian concept of predestination, or with determinism.
Got to go!
Starkman
In response to your post, Armchair stated: God's choice of the nation of Israel as the vessel through which all the nations would be blessed, NOT individual salvation. Thus, Starkman's verses don't contradict Romans 9. He is correct.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/5/2004 4:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Starkman: Go back over the verses I referenced again, look them up in the Old Testament and explain how any of them can be in regard to individuals getting saved or anything like that...
Armchair stated: God's choice of the nation of Israel as the vessel through which all the nations would be blessed, NOT individual salvation.
Paul is indeed talking about salvation here in Rom. 9:
Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
There's more going on here than just choosing a nation! It's about mercy and compassion, this is not just saying "I choose a special people."
Romans 9:23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory...
Paul applies his previous points to "us"! Prepared in advance for membership? No, for glory...
Romans 9:26 "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"
There is a group here, though! It's the group of people who are sons of God, who are saved.
Romans 9:27 ... only the remnant will be saved.
There it is in plain words, this passage is about salvation.
Romans 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith...
Not "they obtained group membership."
Romans 9:33 "... the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
That's faith! Saving faith...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Armchair Theologian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 11/5/2004 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
Starkman: Go back over the verses I referenced again, look them up in the Old Testament and explain how any of them can be in regard to individuals getting saved or anything like that...
Armchair stated: God's choice of the nation of Israel as the vessel through which all the nations would be blessed, NOT individual salvation.
Paul is indeed talking about salvation here in Rom. 9:
quote:
Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
Paul's talking about a nation, a group of his kinsmen.
quote:
Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Back up, it says:
Romans 9:
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
In verse 12, Paul is quoting Genesis 25:23
The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body;
And one people shall be stronger than the other;
And the older shall serve the younger."
So in verse 15, Paul is saying God will have mercy on whichever NATION He wants. He will choose whichever NATION He wants to bless the whole world through.
The OLDER and YOUNGER of verse 12 and
the JACOB and ESAU of verse 13
are shown to be PEOPLES when Paul quotes Genesis 25:23.
In verse 30 and 31 Paul concludes his talk about PEOPLES by referring to GENTILES (a GROUP) and ISRAEL (a GROUP).
What's cool is Rahab, NOT a member of the chosen GROUP, joined the GROUP:
James 2:25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
"The LORD said to her,
'Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body'" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/5/2004 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
AT: God's choice of the nation of Israel as the vessel through which all the nations would be blessed, NOT individual salvation.
Lee: Paul is indeed talking about salvation here in Rom. 9:
Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
AT: Paul's talking about a nation, a group of his kinsmen.
Are you saying that Paul is calling all Israelites chosen as a group? I don't think that is the standard view of corporate election, especially not after the inauguration of the church age. Paul mentions himself here, too, "cursed and cut off," how is this not about individual salvation?
quote:
Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Back up, it says … In verse 12, Paul is quoting Genesis 25:23 … "Two nations are in your womb"
Well, there were not two actual nations in her womb, there were two individuals. And we also should note the mention of individuals here, as well as noting the mention of nations:
"And the older shall serve the younger."
We can't pick and choose just one aspect, both nations and individuals are mentioned, so we have to do some more work, and find Paul's primary intent here.
quote:
So in verse 15, Paul is saying God will have mercy on whichever NATION He wants. He will choose whichever NATION He wants to bless the whole world through.
Again, is this corporate election? An ethnic group is the group being chosen? I don't think people hold that, but that is the implication here, of what you are saying, I think.
quote:
The OLDER and YOUNGER of verse 12 and
the JACOB and ESAU of verse 13
are shown to be PEOPLES when Paul quotes Genesis 25:23.
Did Edom ever serve Israel? What does this mean in the area of salvation? I think the point here is that God's choice is primary, with nations and with individuals. Now we have to ask, does God choose to save whole nations? No, he doesn't, not now, not today, or in Paul's day. So Paul's point must be that God's choice is primary, in the salvation of individuals.
quote:
In verse 30 and 31 Paul concludes his talk about PEOPLES by referring to GENTILES (a GROUP) and ISRAEL (a GROUP).
Then all Gentiles are chosen corporately? And no Israelites? You do seem to be giving just this implication, again and again, only before it was Paul saying the Jewish people were corporately elected, now it's the Gentiles, and not Israel, so is Paul contradicting himself?
quote:
What's cool is Rahab, NOT a member of the chosen GROUP, joined the GROUP.
Well, that's individual salvation, not corporate election, Rahab was chosen, and not … her group.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Armchair Theologian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 11/5/2004 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Are you saying that Paul is calling all Israelites chosen as a group?
Real confusing question...
Paul is talking about Israel, the GROUP that is descended from Jacob.
quote:
Well, there were not two actual nations in her womb, there were two individuals. And we also should note the mention of individuals here, as well as noting the mention of nations:
Well duh. Everyone knows it's two people being born, THAT'S WHY SCRIPTURE GOES THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF POINTING OUT THAT THEY REPRESENT NATIONS, PEOPLES.
The descendants of Jacob was the nation, Israel.
The descendants of Esau were the Edomites.
Genesis 25:23 proves that these two represented "NATIONS", "PEOPLES", not individuals. "Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body". What part of that don't you understand?
quote:
So in verse 15, Paul is saying God will have mercy on whichever NATION He wants. He will choose whichever NATION He wants to bless the whole world through.
quote:
Again, is this corporate election?
Yep. To a task.
quote:
Rahab was chosen, and not … her group.
You have it backward. She wasn't chosen. I quoted a verse:
James 2:25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
Hebrews 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.
By her obedience and faith, she joined the chosen people.
Your salvation is not individual, it's by virtue of being in the group of those "elect in Him". There is NO individual choice, because "He chose us in Him". God chose Jesus and those "in Him" are part of the deal.
Covenant One: God chooses Abraham based on Abraham's faith and obedience. Those born within Abraham's lineage are included (unless they opt out, like Aachan).
Covenant Two: God chooses Jesus based on Jesus' faith and obedience. "Whosoever" born into Jesus become part of the group of those "elect in Him".
"The LORD said to her,
'Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body'" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Armchair Theologian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 11/5/2004 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Looking at Romans 9:21
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
Where does this come from?
Jeremiah 18:
1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying,
2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will announce My words to you."
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel.
4 But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
6 "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.
7 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
9 "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
God is the Potter, the NATION Israel is the clay.
They are a vessel for a certain purpose, bring the Messiah into the world.
When Paul uses the same analogy in Romans 9, they know exactly what he's talking about, God is the Potter, the NATION Israel is the clay.
"The LORD said to her,
'Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body'" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 11/6/2004 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Armchair Theologian,
quote:
Lee: Are you saying that Paul is calling all Israelites chosen as a group?
Real confusing question...
Paul is talking about Israel, the GROUP that is descended from Jacob.
We were talking about corporate election, is this corporate election here? That is what I am asking, and you seem to be presenting these verses as supporting your view of corporate election. So I am asking what exactly you are saying "God chose the nation of Israel" means. I realize that Paul is talking about a group, now, may I ask, is he talking about corporate election of this group?
quote:
Everyone knows it's two people being born, THAT'S WHY SCRIPTURE GOES THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF POINTING OUT THAT THEY REPRESENT NATIONS, PEOPLES.
Yes, but we can't just notice that nations are mentioned, and say "It's all about nations here," since individuals are mentioned here too, in a similar way. I have heard people say Romans 9-11 is about Jews excluding Gentiles, both groups are indeed mentioned, but that doesn't show us, in and of itself, what Paul's primary point is here.
quote:
So in verse 15, Paul is saying God will have mercy on whichever NATION He wants. He will choose whichever NATION He wants to bless the whole world through.
Well, Paul applies this same reasoning to Pharaoh, who, though he thought he was a god, never, I expect, thought he was a whole nation. Again, you are noticing the mention of nations, and making your conclusion based on just that observation, but there's more to notice here in this passage.
quote:
Lee: Again, is this corporate election?
AT: Yep. To a task.
Yes, thank you, that is what I was wondering. Now how does this apply to corporate election to salvation? Was showing mercy to Israel intended to involve every Israelite? I.e. is God choosing every member of this group, or just setting up conditions for them to belong, instead? No conditions are mentioned here, I don't think this fits well with corporate election to salvation, "on whom I will have mercy," we read, not "on whoever meets the required conditions."
Also, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" does not set aside Israel for a task, this is God's acts in view, not Israel's, God's choice to show mercy, or not. And this is applied to individuals, too! Does Paul not apply this to Esau, and to Pharaoh? Well, he does, so his point is not only about corporate groups being chosen.
quote:
Your salvation is not individual, it's by virtue of being in the group of those "elect in Him". There is NO individual choice, because "He chose us in Him". God chose Jesus and those "in Him" are part of the deal.
I agree that salvation does not depend on our choice. So what does it depend on, if not our choice? It must depend on God's choice, of individuals, not of vague, unspecified groups.
quote:
Covenant One: God chooses Abraham based on Abraham's faith and obedience. Those born within Abraham's lineage are included (unless they opt out, like Aachan).
Well, now you seem to be saying salvation does depend on our choice, in a negative sense. So does it, or doesn't it?
quote:
Covenant Two: God chooses Jesus based on Jesus' faith and obedience. "Whosoever" born into Jesus become part of the group of those "elect in Him".
Yes, that is one way I have heard corporate election explained to me. So how is becoming part of a group exemplified in God choosing Israel, choosing the Gentiles now, and Israel again later? I don't think these examples illustrate this view, these examples don't mention people becoming part of a group, they are about people who are in a group.
quote:
God is the Potter, the NATION Israel is the clay.
Yes, they are, but I believe that the point Paul is making is that God's choice is primary, in forming Israel, in inheritances, in decisions Pharaoh made, in hardening nations or showing them mercy, and in salvation, of individuals.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:50 AM (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 |
|
|