 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/20/2002 8:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all-
I posted this many months ago and was looking for some criticism. Does it work? Is my logic tight? How would determinists likely reply? I think there were a few other hot threads going at the time so it didn't get much response. Can I try again?
--------------------
Knowing, Choosing, and Time
In Rom. 9.10ff we read:
"…And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad…"
I’d like to suggest that the point Paul makes relates to God’s knowledge. If Paul believed that God knew eternally the good and bad that the twins would do, he cannot claim that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau is irrespective of their actions because it was made before either was born. It is claimed, however, that God is timeless and that this forbids us from concluding anything about God based on the reference to time in this passage. But can this argument either secure or safeguard the essential point Paul is making? I think not.
In pointing out that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was prior to their births, Paul suggests a particular relationship between God’s choice of Jacob and his knowledge of their future actions. In a word, Paul is claiming that God’s choice was made irrespective of what either one would do in the future, but he believes this claim is substantiated in the fact that God’s choice of Jacob preceded Jacob’s having done anything. I submit that Paul’s claim is baseless if God in fact knew exactly what good and evil would precede from the twins. Paul’s point rests on the relationship that exists between God’s knowledge and their actions. If God is timeless, as is claimed, so are his knowledge and choices timeless, in which case his choice of Jacob over Esau cannot precede their actions. In fact, if Paul believed God possessed EDF, the question of God’s electing Jacob BEFORE he did anything good or evil would simply not arise. Anyone could object, “God didn’t need to wait until they were born, Paul! Since he knows the future exhaustively, the actions of the twins were eternally known to him.”
It is equally impossible to make sense of this passage by claiming that Paul’s point requires only that God’s choice be manifested to US prior to the birth of the twins, that is, the reference to time reflects our perception of God’s choice. This will not do. To be effective, the point of the passage requires God’s point of view. It is HIS choice relative to their actions, not our perception of his choice relative to their actions, which is at issue. Were it the later, Paul’s argument would self-destruct and be reduced to something like, “The fact that WE came to understand God’s choice of Jacob over Esau before either twin had done anything good or bad proves that God’s choice was irrespective of these actions.” Besides it’s being untrue, it is hardly a point worth making.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/20/2002 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, TGB,
Listen, here's my take.
I think this Romans passage (as well as the other big guns in Eph 1 and IPeter I) are often misunderstood because of the context being forgotten. The issue in several of the election passages is Jew and Gentile, not individuals. That flavors everything differently than a "You go to heaven, you don't" type of approach. Not the issue.
But onto the issues here in Romans 9...
The passage, in my opinion, has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge of Jacob or Esau. The issue is only in regard to the fact that no one is EVER going to say to God "You know, God, I really did do a good job here and that's got to mean something, doesn't it?" or "Hey, I'm chosen BECAUSE of what I've done". No, not going to happen.
Clearly God can choose whom He will before they are born as well as after they are born. I mean, it's neither here nor there to God; he chooses, we don't have a say about it. BUT...
We have this tendency to do want a say from day one, do we not? And I think the important theology of this passage is that God was making an eternal statement about grace, about life found in Him, about How to have a relationship with God in and by grace: BY HIS CHOOSING (setting the terms, if you will). It is so emmense of a theological concept that God starts (for our purposes of getting this seriously into our heads) with the unborn twins as He sets in motion the beginnings if the nation of Israel - supposed to have been used by God as a light to the world about Him. I think the theological implications of this are astounding. That's why God did it this way.
Now, what about God's foreknowledge directly.
I don't think the passage is saying anything about what God did or did not know about the works or lives of Jacob and Esau; that's not the point. Paul is merely stating grace is not by what one does, but by He who chooses. That God chose one over the other isn't to damn one and bless the other. It's merely to say, "I think I'll make my point by choosing whom I will before they're born". I really don't see anything about EDF being and issue here.
Consider if God had waited till the kids were grown up. And, let's just say Esau was a great guy. Wait, let's say Jacob was a great guy also. No, even better, let's say they were both nasty folks. Okay, one's fairly better than the other. Oh, alright, they're both mediocre. Who is God going to consider choosing based on their lives? Who's God going to choose based on one being horrible, let's say, and one being really good? None of them: you don't earn life! BUT WE NEED THIS DRILLED IN OUR HEADS! Are we not so proned to say (namely before we come into relationship with God) "Hey, I'm not THAT bad"? Are we not. But we are all sinners! Period.
No, TGB, I don't think the issue is EDF or OV or anything like that. It's just God saying "People must know at the deepest level possible, that I choose to offer life in view of their sin. I alone choose how it will be accomplished, when and what."
The same point, I believe, is resonated througout the rest of Romans 9; the issue isn't "You go to hell, you don't, I say so". And neither is it "I know who these twins Jacob and Esau will be..." God is merely assuring we know CLEARLY that God chooses. No one earns their way. A point so large that it is theologically weaved in early on in these narratives of the twins.
And, by the way, again, the choosing here is not individuals going to heaven or hell - and it should never be made that as its meaning in these passages - but HOW God will bring about life into this world. That's all.
Well, for the choice!
Starkman
The issue isn't
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 2/20/2002 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom / Starkman,
Not sure if my finger is on the issue or not, but my own take is that God decided beforehand He was going to use Jacob - and not Esau - in a special way. This of course will result in special/privileged 'divinely-generated' possibilities (even semi-certainties?) in Jacob's future.
I suspect the passage has less to do with God's knowledge than it does His sovereign plans. Of course assumptions about His knowledge - like Tom mentioned - would impact the significance of the point Paul was making.
Timelessness may still work, because if God's purpose independent of merit (actual, possible, future, present, whatever) was the main thing here, then it wouldn't matter if He knew the future or not. Jacob may have been foreseen to be good OR bad, it's a non-issue.
what say ya?
AL
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/20/2002 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Alwin,
I agree! I like, too, what you said:
"Not sure if my finger is on the issue or not, but my own take is that God decided beforehand He was going to use Jacob - and not Esau - in a special way. This of course will result in special/privileged 'divinely-generated' possibilities (even semi-certainties?) in Jacob's future.
Think about it! I mean, it wasn't just that God chose the lineage of Jacob without anyone's say so, it's that He's also involving Jacob in things he just may not like...or will like.
As I've posted here before, our freedom is two-fold: vertical before God, and horizontal before men, the world and myself.
The vertical aspect of relationship with God is VERY limited: choose life or death; follow God or don't. You don't have much more freedom than that unless God cares to grant you special freedoms. In Jacob's case the specifics of his limited freedom (vertically here) is clear. Jacob, like Jonah will do as He's told (oh, we just hate that, don't we!). Before men Jacob's got lots of freedom; before God? No way, dude! And really, it is the case for all of us in some respect or another, in some way or time sooner or later!
For the vertical and horzontal!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/21/2002 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman and Alywn-
I think you guys are making this more complicated than it is.
I agree with a lot of what you both say, but it seems to me that Paul’s essential point rest upon the “timing” of God’s choice. Paul actually says as much. I’m not saying the timing IS Paul’s point, rather only that the timing of God’s choice of Jacob proves the one important thing about that choice which Paul seeks to establish.
Whether the election here is to salvation or vocation, it matters not. Paul’s point is that God’s choice of Jacob was made irrespective of anything good or bad that Jacob would do. That much is clear. Right?
OK. What does Paul feel is the proof that God’s choice of Jacob was indeed irrespective of anything Jacob would do? It’s right there in the text. Paul feels that this is proven in the fact that God’s choice of Jacob was made before his birth. It’s the “timing” that clinches it for Paul. We can know that God’s choice of Jacob was made irrespective of anything good or bad that Jacob did on the grounds that God made the choice PIOR to anything good or bad Jacob actually did (that is, before he was born). Paul’s entire point here rests upon the timing of God’s choice.
That much said, my further point about EDF is simple. If it is also true that God foreknew the good and bad Jacob would do, and especially if it is also true that Paul and his readers believed this to be the case, then Paul’s argument fails; for the mere fact that God chose Jacob before he was born does not in itself prove that the choice was made irrespective of Jacob’s foreknown actions. If God knows eternally all the good and bad Jacob would do, then Paul cannot claim on the basis that God chose Jacob before he was born that the choice was irrespective of Jacob’s actions. It may indeed be true that the choice was made irrespective of Jacob’s actions, or it may not. My only point is Paul’s claim that the fact that God chose Jacob BEFORE he was born proves nothing in this regard if it is also true that God possesses EDF.
Does anyone else see this?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 2/21/2002 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings!
It is important to note that Romans 9-11 go together. Note the inclusive conclusion Paul makes at the end of the discourse:
"And now, in the same way, the Jews are the rebels, and God's mercy has come to you. But someday they, too, will share in God's mercy. For God has imprisoned all people in their own disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone." Rom. 11:31-32 (NLT)
The other point often missed when discussing election or God's choice of individuals is that God chooses an individual or a people, so he can use them to redeem others, or to be His messager. God chose Israel and the church to be used in his efforts to bring the message of salvation to all people. Now THAT, is good news! 
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
Edited by - Winghead on 02/21/2002 11:12:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/21/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/21/2002 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, TBG,
Um...I guess I had missed your main issue. I see now what you were getting at.
Okay, well, then that's that.
I quit. I'm going home. I've nothing else to say. Wait a minute...I am home.
For the chosen elect who don't know they're not electively chosen...thing!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 2/21/2002 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
some ramblings here...
God's foreknowledge naturally follows from His determining. Therefore, if He's already decided that Jacob be 'elected', this would suggest a special bestowment of blessings leading to Jacob's future 'merits'. And surely God knows Jacob would do certain 'meritorious' if only because He has elected Jacob to do so.
Therefore, EDF and timelessness may still be valid for Paul here if only because foreknowledge of Jacob is a moot-point GIVEN that God had plans for him already.
But what does God's choice of Jacob BEFORE J's birth prove then? It could be nothing more (nor less) than that Jacob's destiny was planned before he was born i.e. God has the sovereign right to determine/elect people pre-birth. The msg could simply be that God may/could have elected certain people before they're born with the election being grounded in nothing other than His will (and certainly not their merit).
God has plans for us before we know it (or are born) - could this not be Paul's point? And could this not apply even in EDF?
have i read u right?
Al
I think you guys are making this more complicated than it is.
I agree with a lot of what you both say, but it seems to me that Paul’s essential point rest upon the “timing” of God’s choice. Paul actually says as much. I’m not saying the timing IS Paul’s point, rather only that the timing of God’s choice of Jacob proves the one important thing about that choice which Paul seeks to establish.
Whether the election here is to salvation or vocation, it matters not. Paul’s point is that God’s choice of Jacob was made irrespective of anything good or bad that Jacob would do. That much is clear. Right?
OK. What does Paul feel is the proof that God’s choice of Jacob was indeed irrespective of anything Jacob would do? It’s right there in the text. Paul feels that this is proven in the fact that God’s choice of Jacob was made before his birth. It’s the “timing” that clinches it for Paul. We can know that God’s choice of Jacob was made irrespective of anything good or bad that Jacob did on the grounds that God made the choice PIOR to anything good or bad Jacob actually did (that is, before he was born). Paul’s entire point here rests upon the timing of God’s choice.
That much said, my further point about EDF is simple. If it is also true that God foreknew the good and bad Jacob would do, and especially if it is also true that Paul and his readers believed this to be the case, then Paul’s argument fails; for the mere fact that God chose Jacob before he was born does not in itself prove that the choice was made irrespective of Jacob’s foreknown actions. If God knows eternally all the good and bad Jacob would do, then Paul cannot claim on the basis that God chose Jacob before he was born that the choice was irrespective of Jacob’s actions. It may indeed be true that the choice was made irrespective of Jacob’s actions, or it may not. My only point is Paul’s claim that the fact that God chose Jacob BEFORE he was born proves nothing in this regard if it is also true that God possesses EDF.
Does anyone else see this?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/21/2002 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | AL-
I see your point and am thinking on it!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 3/5/2002 11:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
I think you’re right on.
When I look at Romans 9 in its context, I believe it shows that predetermination has nothing to do with salvation. It only concerns service. Rom 9:10,11 “And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)”. God has always chosen His own special ways to bring redemption. He used Jacob, not because he had done any good works, but because He chose to. He did not use Esau, although he had not done any evil, again, because He chose to.
God has the right to choose individual people for service to bring the promise. God can do this and be perfectly just, because God can have mercy on whomever He pleases. Therefore, we have no right to question God, for God can do whatever He wants with His creation.
The Jews had no right to question God’s authority to use anyone He pleased to bring the message of redemption. In fact, God endured those who were fit for destruction and demonstrated His riches on the vessels of mercy by calling a new group from Jews and Gentiles. This group is the “us” of verse 24, referring to Christians. Therefore, the Gentiles gained righteousness though they didn’t pursue it. This was possible because Jesus Christ made God’s righteousness available by His faithfulness culminating in His death (Rom 3:21-26). However, Israel didn’t attain to righteousness because they sought it by the works of the law instead of faith. In fact, they stumbled over true righteousness (Rom 9:30-33). So, the answer to the question, “How could God have abandoned Israel?”, is clear. God can do as He pleases. He chose Israel. Now He has decided to choose a group from Israel and the Gentiles based on the righteousness of faith. If Israel misses out, it’s her fault.
These concepts are illustrated frequently in this chapter. Ishmael was rejected. He was the child of the flesh. He was the child of the flesh because Abraham and Sarah took it into their own hands to produce the promised seed apart from God. Abraham went in to Hagar, and she conceived. This does not mean Ishmael couldn’t become a believer. He could have been saved, but he was not a man of faith. He persecuted Isaac (Gal 3:28,29). We see then that Ishmael becomes the personification of a child of the flesh.
In verse 11, we see that God’s principle as recorded in Hebrews 10:9 is, “He takes away the first that He may establish the second.” This could be the basis of His purpose according to election. It’s not of works but is based on His calling. This election is not to salvation. It is for God’s purpose. I think that His primary purpose is the provision of salvation by our Savior.
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” To begin, even though Jacob consistently duped Esau, Esau never really served Jacob. In fact, almost the opposite was true. How then was this prophecy true? We must look at the quotation’s context. “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” (Gen 25:23). Notice, it explicitly says, “Two nations are in your womb.” God was not dealing with the individuals here. He was dealing with two nations. Israel was His chosen people. Edom (Esau) was not. In the future, Edom will be the servant of Israel.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” This verse is like the previous one with one great exception. This reference is from the last book of the Old Testament. This was about a thousand years after Jacob and Esau were born. When we look at the context of Malachi 1, we see that He is again talking about the two nations. It doesn’t mean He loved everyone in Israel or hated everyone in Edom, for we find repeatedly how wrathful He got with Israel and destroyed some among them. Therefore, this love and hate was not against the individual men Jacob and Esau, but towards the nations. It was recorded after the nations had been in existence for a long time.
We must consider another point. This hate is not necessarily absolute. In Luke 14:26, the hate is certainly relative. “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” I think the hate in Malachi and Romans 9:13 is also relative. It may relate to God’s sovereign choice among the nations.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:45 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 |
|
|