Romans 9

[EricH]

Paul finishes up Romans 8 by celebrating God's faithfulness and love (Romans 8:31-39). This makes sense in light of his theological explanation of the Gospel in the earlier chapters. Basically, Paul is saying that the Gospel can be trusted because God can be trusted.

Some maintain that Romans 8-11 is a detour for Paul, a change of topic. I don't think that is the case at all. The entirety of Romans is a defense of the gospel. This defense is against the backdrop of a controversy that had been brewing regarding the relationship between Judaism and the church. Paul is not changing topics, or using Israel just to make a theological point. He is actually wrestling with what the Gospel means for Israel. The tension he feels is this: How can it be that Israel who is the possessor of so many blessings (Romans 9:4-5), not participate in the salvation that is made possible by the Gospel (9:1-3)? How can those who are the objects of Gods love, be enemies because of the gospel (11:28)?

Paul's goal seems to me to be to resolve this tension which has arisen because at that time most of Israel had rejected the Gospel. How can this be if the Gospel is first of all for the Jewish people? In earlier chapters, Paul has denied that the Jews are guaranteed salvation just because they are Jews. People will ask what has happened to their status as God's elect? The tension is also deepened by Paul's insistence that Gentile believers have now inherited what belonged to Israel, They are Abraham's hiers (Romas 4, 8 etc).

Some might be tempted to remove this tension by simply stating that the church has replaced Israel. But in my opinion to do that would be to throw the Gospel away. According to Paul, the Gospel belongs to God (Romans 1:1). The God who has created this Gospel that we can depend on, is the same one who promised Israel that they would always be His people. If God did not keep His promise to Israel, how could He be trusted to to keep the promises made in the Gospel?

Paul's way of relieving this tension seems to be to show that the God who made the promises to Israel is the same one who made the promises in the Gospel and that both can be trusted. He demonstrates that nothing God has accomplished in the Gospel in any way negates the promises He made to Israel in the OT. He explains that God is fulfilling all of His promises (it is interesting that 1/3 of all Paul's quotes of the OT are in Romans 9-11).

I think it is probably not correct to say that Romans 9-11 is the climax or highlight of the letter. In Romans 1-8, Paul stressed the individual's relationship with God as seen through the eyes of the Gospel. Paul's insistence that individual Jews are separated from God and deserving of judgement (2:1-3:20), made it necessary for him to deal with God's corporate promises to Israel and their relationship to the Gospel and its dependability. It is simply a logical necessity for Paul to deal with this question.

[EricH]

Moved from General Discussion to Doctrinal Questions

[other one]

He hardened PHaro's heart, but are you really sure that He will send him to the fires of Hell?

A lot of bad stuff happens on this planet that may or may not put a person in the fire at the last day....

If you believe in a God that would make something and force it into becoming something that would be damned to eternal punishment when they did not have the free will to not do such, you believe in a God that I don't see in the new testament.

1 Tim 2:1-7

2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time. 7 And for this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

NASB

If Gods will be done, everyone will be saved in the end.

What you are proposing sounds like the doctrine of Universalism, the belief that all people will be saved and that is something the Bible squarely teaches against.

I agree Shilo and that was my point, it is Gods will/desire that we all be saved, and that obviously isn't going to happen from many many other verses in the Word. Gods will is not always done here on planet earth because he has given us free will. Somethings we do it our way and just pay the consequences.

It also points out the danger of making any dogmatic doctrine using one or two verses and not making sure that it aligns with "all" scripture. that's how we get things like Universalism.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think it is probably not correct to say that Romans 9-11 is the climax or highlight of the letter. In Romans 1-8, Paul stressed the individual's relationship with God as seen through the eyes of the Gospel. Paul's insistence that individual Jews are separated from God and deserving of judgement (2:1-3:20), made it necessary for him to deal with God's corporate promises to Israel and their relationship to the Gospel and its dependability. It is simply a logical necessity for Paul to deal with this question.

He is not starting an entirely new topic per se, but he is dealing an issue that serves as focal point for the book of Romans. The climatic nature of the first 8 chapters seems to indicate that.

For 8 chapters Paul has been dealing with, 1. The universal guilt of mankind, (ch.1-2), Justification (ch.3-5), sanctification (ch.6-7), and our final redemption (ch. 8).

Chapter 9 starts a new line thought yet is built on what has already been said. In effect, Paul begins to explain to his nonJewish audience the cost at which their entrance into Kingdom came. Chapters 9-11 is an appeal to the Church to be a blessing to Israel. Paul has explained to his nonjewish audience how their entrance into the Kingdom was made possible, and now he pulls back the curtain to show them that a partial hardening has come upon Israel and God has broken off some of the natura olive branches to make room for these wild olive branches. There is still enough room for the broken branches to be grafted back in and Paul's appeal to his nonJewish audience is that in light of the fact that they have entered the Kingdom at Israel's expense, they owe it to Israel to be a light and to provoke them to jealousy.

God did not have to include the Gentiles. Jesus could have taken His place as king when he entered Jerusalem. He could have circumvented 2,000 years of the church age and just started His Kingdom rule on earth right then and there, but He had a higher purpose. That purpose of course, included bringing the Gentiles into the Kingdom.

In chapters 1-8, Paul shows them the wonderful gift they have and how they came to be included in God's plan of salvation, and uses that as a platform to show them why they need to be a blessing to Israel whom God used to make that gift availabe to them.

[EricH]

I think it is probably not correct to say that Romans 9-11 is the climax or highlight of the letter. In Romans 1-8, Paul stressed the individual's relationship with God as seen through the eyes of the Gospel. Paul's insistence that individual Jews are separated from God and deserving of judgement (2:1-3:20), made it necessary for him to deal with God's corporate promises to Israel and their relationship to the Gospel and its dependability. It is simply a logical necessity for Paul to deal with this question.

He is not starting an entirely new topic per se, but he is dealing an issue that serves as focal point for the book of Romans. The climatic nature of the first 8 chapters seems to indicate that.

For 8 chapters Paul has been dealing with, 1. The universal guilt of mankind, (ch.1-2), Justification (ch.3-5), sanctification (ch.6-7), and our final redemption (ch. 8).

Chapter 9 starts a new line thought yet is built on what has already been said. In effect, Paul begins to explain to his nonJewish audience the cost at which their entrance into Kingdom came. Chapters 9-11 is an appeal to the Church to be a blessing to Israel. Paul has explained to his nonjewish audience how their entrance into the Kingdom was made possible, and now he pulls back the curtain to show them that a partial hardening has come upon Israel and God has broken off some of the natura olive branches to make room for these wild olive branches. There is still enough room for the broken branches to be grafted back in and Paul's appeal to his nonJewish audience is that in light of the fact that they have entered the Kingdom at Israel's expense, they owe it to Israel to be a light and to provoke them to jealousy.

God did not have to include the Gentiles. Jesus could have taken His place as king when he entered Jerusalem. He could have circumvented 2,000 years of the church age and just started His Kingdom rule on earth right then and there, but He had a higher purpose. That purpose of course, included bringing the Gentiles into the Kingdom.

In chapters 1-8, Paul shows them the wonderful gift they have and how they came to be included in God's plan of salvation, and uses that as a platform to show them why they need to be a blessing to Israel whom God used to make that gift availabe to them.

I guess we agree to disagree

[EricH]

I agree Shilo and that was my point, it is Gods will/desire that we all be saved, and that obviously isn't going to happen from many many other verses in the Word. Gods will is not always done here on planet earth because he has given us free will.

This really is not stated anywhere in scripture. It is a logical deduction (as is the reformed position that God's glory was the reason He did not save everyone). What is interesting is that people on both sides of the argument agree that there was something more important to God than saving everyone. One side says it was free choice. The other, God's glory. Both sides use a specific set of verses to arrive at their conclusions and seem to ignore others that don't quite fit.

[Guest]

Amen!

[Guest shiloh357]

I agree Shilo and that was my point, it is Gods will/desire that we all be saved, and that obviously isn't going to happen from many many other verses in the Word. Gods will is not always done here on planet earth because he has given us free will.

This really is not stated anywhere in scripture. It is a logical deduction (as is the reformed position that God's glory was the reason He did not save everyone). What is interesting is that people on both sides of the argument agree that there was something more important to God than saving everyone. One side says it was free choice. The other, God's glory. Both sides use a specific set of verses to arrive at their conclusions and seem to ignore others that don't quite fit.

It's more than that, Eric. What I mean is, is God's will being done when a person shoplifts? Is God's will being done when some is raped? Murdered?, Robbed?

People like myself cannot accept that God's Sovereignty means that God's will is always done especially when acts AGAINST the revealed will of God are being committed. How can God's will be done by someone violating God's Will? Why would the will of God be found in that which God has told us He hates and commands us not to do in the first place?

God is sovereign, and God is in control of this world and the universe, but I don't think there is scriptural support for the notion that every action, every choice is God's Sovereign Will being done.

I would also find it hard to accept that it glorifies God for someone to die in their sin. God is glorified when people are saved, not when people die without Christ.

[kross]

I agree Shilo and that was my point, it is Gods will/desire that we all be saved, and that obviously isn't going to happen from many many other verses in the Word. Gods will is not always done here on planet earth because he has given us free will.

This really is not stated anywhere in scripture. It is a logical deduction (as is the reformed position that God's glory was the reason He did not save everyone). What is interesting is that people on both sides of the argument agree that there was something more important to God than saving everyone. One side says it was free choice. The other, God's glory. Both sides use a specific set of verses to arrive at their conclusions and seem to ignore others that don't quite fit.

It's more than that, Eric. What I mean is, is God's will being done when a person shoplifts? Is God's will being done when some is raped? Murdered?, Robbed?

People like myself cannot accept that God's Sovereignty means that God's will is always done especially when acts AGAINST the revealed will of God are being committed. How can God's will be done by someone violating God's Will? Why would the will of God be found in that which God has told us He hates and commands us not to do in the first place?

God is sovereign, and God is in control of this world and the universe, but I don't think there is scriptural support for the notion that every action, every choice is God's Sovereign Will being done.

I would also find it hard to accept that it glorifies God for someone to die in their sin. God is glorified when people are saved, not when people die without Christ.

"What if GOD wanting to show HIS wrath and to make HIS power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepard for destruction?"

What if it is GOD's intention to glorify HIS perfect righteousness and Holiness, chose this as HIS way to do it? By showing HIS wrath and vengeance?

Our focus seems to be on the limitted look at the creation. What if it is really about the creator? What takes place in this world, in this short blink of an eye may not be the point. What comes next might be. This creation being just a way to show all of the aspects/facets of GOD's personallity.

[Guest yod]

Our focus seems to be on the limitted look at the creation. What if it is really about the creator? What takes place in this world, in this short blink of an eye may not be the point. What comes next might be. This creation being just a way to show all of the aspects/facets of GOD's personallity.

That's neat to think about...and it probably doesn't show "all" aspects actually.

Since Elohim lives outside of the dimensions of time, He could know what men do with their free will and make it all work out for the good of those who love Him (freewill) and are called according to His purpose ((predestined by this freewill choice?))

He is just that smart.

That would also allow for men to have freewill and for Him to be sovereign in the events of history at the same time