Non-Calvinists: Explain Romans 9

[VALIS]

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 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. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 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 him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

======================================

So for those who believe in free will and deny pre-destination and election, how do you explain away this very important chapter of the Bible?

[Ardruire Iacób]

And this is why I wonder for what reason exactly the Catholic Church dropped pre-destination...

[Stavroforos]

Can you actually cite the chapter of the Bible, give reference to it? I want to read it without all the commentary without taking the effort to look it up myself.

Maybe in spoiler tags or something.

[VALIS]

Can you actually cite the chapter of the Bible, give reference to it? I want to read it without all the commentary without taking the effort to look it up myself.

Maybe in spoiler tags or something.

Heres the full Romans 9:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...9;&version=47;

If you want to read the whole book of Romans go to a hotel and nick a Bible. Or maybe buy one.

[Playfishpaste]

Doesn't support predestination at all. All it says is god's a pretty tough guy and will Eff your up if he so pleases. However, as other parts of the bible state, he chooses not to do this and allows his children to discover where their loyalties lie and who they are.

[VALIS]

Doesn't support predestination at all. All it says is god's a pretty tough guy and will Eff your up if he so pleases. However, as other parts of the bible state, he chooses not to do this and allows his children to discover where their loyalties lie and who they are.

It clearly teaches pre-destination. It talks about Jacob who before he was born, God loved, and it talks about Esau who before he was born, God hated. God elected people who he was going to save and who he was going to condemn before time began.

Look at this passage: "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 him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

That passage also teaches Sola Fide too btw. Anyway, God has picked people before they were born to save and others to condemn and harden their hearts. This much is clear. The rest of Romans goes on to explain why humans have no right to question god; the potter analogy for example.

So your explanation, unfortunately, is lacking.

[Playfishpaste]

It clearly teaches pre-destination. It talks about Jacob who before he was born, God loved, and it talks about Esau who before he was born, God hated. God elected people who he was going to save and who he was going to condemn before time began.

Nope, just teaches that he disliked one over the other. Loved the other, even. You should know it's actually impossible for god to hate anything, which is why this passage isn't actually talking about two dudes, just as revelations doesn't actually have anything to do with dragons.

Look at this passage: "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 him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

K.

That passage also teaches Sola Fide too btw.

Did you just confuse Sola Fide for having anything to do with predestination? Because I think you did, unless you just felt like pointing it out for fun.

Anyway, God has picked people before they were born to save and others to condemn and harden their hearts. This much is clear. The rest of Romans goes on to explain why humans have no right to question god; the potter analogy for example.

Humans have no right to question god because we're dumb. I mean you could, go ahead. Just telling ya it's a pretty idiotic thing to question the dude who made everything. See Job 38.

God "picked" people because he knew of what choices they would make. He favored some people, this is not to say he abandoned others, the edomites were blessed. Despite them being blessed, they still betrayed god in the end, by aiding the enemies of Isreal. This was not a necessary future, the edomites very well could have chosed not to do this and not to be idiots like esau, but this is why esau is a metaphorical figurehead. He represents the edomite's innate doom in their self-righteousness.

The people paint the world, god gives them the brushes and has the finished product.

So your explanation, unfortunately, is lacking.

Fraid not bud. God is all-knowing, but not all-regulating.

[Tiberius Tosi]

It clearly teaches pre-destination. It talks about Jacob who before he was born, God loved, and it talks about Esau who before he was born, God hated. God elected people who he was going to save and who he was going to condemn before time began.

Look at this passage: "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 him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

That passage also teaches Sola Fide too btw. Anyway, God has picked people before they were born to save and others to condemn and harden their hearts. This much is clear. The rest of Romans goes on to explain why humans have no right to question god; the potter analogy for example.

So your explanation, unfortunately, is lacking.

Sorry but, this is just my two cents. If God is all knowing, then God knows Esau is gonna up, and therefore he does not like him as much, whereas Jacob he already knows is going to do good, so he likes him. God is not choosing which goes to heaven or hell, as they are making the choices, God just merely knows what they are going to do and likes them accordingly, it doesn't mean God didn't give Esau the chance to do good, it was Esau's choice.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

The passage clearly teaches predestination. I don't know how you can honestly read the passage and think otherwise. To be fair, I know the Eastern Orthodox Church follows Chrysostom's explination, which you can probably find online. But I find it very unsatisfactory and doesn't explain the passage well. All other explanations put forward by non-Calvinist/Reformed people are quite silly and full of holes, really. The reason most people dispute this passage so much is because they don't want to believe in predestination, not because the passage doesn't teach it.

[88MPH]

Hmm. I always thought this passage was giving a pass to the creators of spittoons and bedpans.

[Ummon]

If Romans 9 was to be taken into consideration alone, then I'd be in agreement that there is predestination. But Jesus once spoke of talents.

God knows all your possible destinies, and even the one which you will choose, but you choose nonetheless, and are held accountable. Simple northerners and their fluffy heresies.

[My Favorite Martian]

It's sad that these guys have stopped reading their Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann.

[ivan_the_terrible]

I've always wondered about predestination, and I guess this place is as good as any to ask.

If it is 100% certain where you will end up, what the hell is the point (pardon the pun)?


In other words, I can be a saint, yet end up in hell because that is my predetermined destiny. Or I could be a warmongering lunatic (a Christian one) and end up in heaven.

[Ummon]

If A is A, what point being A?

[My Favorite Martian]

I read jewish family histories.

[ivan_the_terrible]

If A is A, what point being A?

If only B gets into heaven, and you are A no matter what you do, what's the point in believing anything?

[Ummon]

If only B gets into heaven, and you are A no matter what you do, what's the point in believing anything?

Because believing is part of being B.

[basics]

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40

Tiberius Tosi,

Such a wonderful saying and true in every sense. That " everyone who sees the Son " is the crux, for how can the blind see the Son but that He is revealed to them in an individual manner. And " believes in Him " being joined by continuity to the statement is the prerogative that must happen to have everlasting life. And finally the proof of all before, the " and " providing what is continuous to the statement being that " at the last day, I will raise him up." The last day being of course the Judgement day.

How does one believe apart from the Son being revealed? By nature we can't because by sin our innards are constrained by the serpent who gladly sees us in religion without the Son having any meaning to the adherents of such. There is no Spirit there to guide them apart from the one whose job it is to condemn them as does the Law. Our nature is at odds with God yet He gave His Son that these odds be shortened. Can man do that? Of course he can't because he is bound by sin.

This is shown quite clearly as the Lord hung on the tree. " Father, father, why have you forsaken me?" At that point He was not the Lord but every sinner whose names are written in the book of life. He couldn't cry out for help because the divine wrath was being poured out on sinners for whom He was hanging there. That is what the Law demands and that was what was happening on the cross. If He died on the presumption that all men can choose salvation then the blood must be shared by all men.

If this is the case then by blood and blood alone are they cleansed of their sin and therefore all mankind is saved. And if that were the case all mankind would have one faith, one Spirit and one Lord for there is no other. Choice does not come into it at all, indeed it only confuses the simplicity of the Gospel. A man must be born again to be saved but that saving happens when the Father reveals the Son to them that are saved on the day appointed for their saving.

For by faith of Jesus Christ are you saved.. and it is unto all and upon all them that believe. That is from faith to faith, the faith of Jesus Christ to the faith of the new creation in Christ. What that means is that at conversion the faith of Jesus is gifted to the new believer meaning it is upon them as is written. That it is unto all is appropriate that when they believe, are converted or were converted, is only separated by the timing of God.

If men had choice in the matter why do Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and certain Protestant factions baptise children because to me a baby cannot possibly choose what he or she has yet to know of. To these so-called churches, these children, even adults, are now Christians and I may be the most problematical Christian ever born again, but this is just not right, neither can it be true, not according to Scripture.

Some hold that baptism is an act of being born again, yet there is no conviction, and the babies have already been put in the record as being sacred, so if they are sacred in birth what makes them suddenly sinners that they have to be baptised to be born again? I mean you can't be more sacred than sacred. So these little babies grow up to make a choice that is already enacted for them is no more than imagination run riot.

Paul writes that all who are in Christ Jesus are a new creation and that creation is dependent on what the leading statement says above. The Son must be revealed to the sinner who at that revelation is brought to a position of conviction and once that person realises what God the Son did on their behalf they are convicted, cut to the heart, as David proclaims. Then does God make new that which was old. Then is faith transferred the One unto the other and then does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the new creation.

It is all of God.

[ket222]

how could Christ's death on the cross be for ALL humanity if God WILLS that most of humanity goes to everlasting fire? What happened to 'forgive them for they know not what to do'? I am of the opinion stated above about God's loving nature.

Frankly, the statement "God hates his non-elect" above is rather revolting to me and shows how one sect of Christianity takes a couple passages of the bible, distorts them and therefore distorts God's nature in people's eyes. We are talking here about a hardened strain of Calvinism. I daresay that Catholic, Orthodox and other Protestant viewpoints don't go this far. Please show me otherwise.

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

how could Christ's death on the cross be for ALL humanity if God WILLS that most of humanity goes to everlasting fire?

Where did you get this idea that Christ died for all humanity?

What happened to 'forgive them for they know not what to do'? I am of the opinion stated above about God's loving nature.

But what does it mean for us to be forgiven in the eyes of God? God is perfectly just and the judge of all humanity, so he does not forgive us just by letting us off the hook as it were. Instead, He forgives us because we are made clean through Christ's payment of a substitutionary atonment upon the cross, in which he took the punishment specifically for those that it was to redeem (the elect). Jesus is clear that he only dies for his sheep (the elect), not all people.

Frankly, the statement "God hates his non-elect" above is rather revolting to me and shows how one sect of Christianity takes a couple passages of the bible, distorts them and therefore distorts God's nature in people's eyes. We are talking here about a hardened strain of Calvinism. I daresay that Catholic, Orthodox and other Protestant viewpoints don't go this far. Please show me otherwise.

It's just standard Calvinism, and you can find it all throughout the Bible, it's rooted both in the prophecies about Jesus in the OT, and all the writings about him in the NT.

On the other hand, the free will argument often comes largely from the gospel of John, with a couple of verses taken out of the context, where Christ's sacrifice is applied to the whole world, in order to explain to the Jews that he is not just a messiah for ethnic Israel, but Gentiles as well... this does not mean he is a messiah for every individual on the planet.