An alternate exegesis of Romans 9:6-29

[Mercy_Shown]

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

It is way too easy for the sinful nature still in us to speak out harshly with judgment and then rationalize it as a virtue than it is to treat our opponents with kindness. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

Presenting theological beliefs on Christian forums without being drawn into pitch battles of negative comments, innuendo, and often ad hominem arguments can be difficult. Once that happens neither party has the high road and Christ is dishonored.

Such is the condition of most forums. We do not join forums to hold hands and sing kum-bah-yah. I do not and cannot hold anyone but myself responsible for the way I reflect Christ.

As an example, I have already been told how disorganized, unresponsive, trolling and biblically ignorant I am for questioning certain theological teachings. This does not bother me, but what does bother me is the old inclination in me to defend my positions based on ego. So since there have been calls for my exegesis on Romans 9:6-29 I have decided to post mine in a reasoned and hopefully Christ-like way that does not throw anyone under the bus for what they believe.

Will it change anyone’s mind? Probably not but mind-changing is God’s purview anyway and whether one believes in Calvin’s TULIP or not is not salvific. Anyway, here it is. It is long if you want to slog through it.

Romans 9:6-20 is a passage from the New Testament of the Bible, specifically from the letter written by the Apostle Paul to the Romans. This section addresses the theme of God's sovereignty and the relationship between God and humanity, particularly in the context of God's chosen people.

Here's an exegesis (interpretation and explanation) of Romans 9:6-20:

Romans 9:6-20 (ESV):
6 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 Rebekah 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 him who calls—
12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
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.”
16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
17 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.”
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
20 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?”

Exegesis:

• Verse 6-8: Paul begins by addressing the apparent discrepancy between God's promises to Israel and the reality that not all physical descendants of Israel are part of God's chosen people. He emphasizes that being a true child of God is not based on physical descent but on the promise and God's choosing.
• Verse 9-13: Paul cites examples from the Old Testament, particularly the stories of Isaac and Jacob, to illustrate that God's choice is not dependent on human actions or merit but on His sovereign purpose. The mention of God loving Jacob and hating Esau highlights God's prerogative in choosing individuals according to His divine plan.
• Verse 14-16: Anticipating a potential objection about God's justice, Paul asserts that there is no injustice on God's part. God's mercy is not earned but given according to His sovereign will, and human effort or will does not determine God's choice.
• Verse 17-18: Paul cites the example of Pharaoh to illustrate God's sovereignty over rulers and nations. God uses individuals, even those who resist Him, to accomplish His purposes for the sake of revealing His power and making His name known.
• Verse 19-20: Paul addresses a hypothetical objection regarding human responsibility and God's will. He emphasizes the audacity of questioning God's actions, asserting that God's ways are beyond human comprehension, and humans should not challenge the Creator.

In summary, Romans 9:6-20 underscores the sovereignty of God in choosing and calling individuals according to His purpose, highlighting that God's mercy is not based on human merit but is an expression of His divine will and plan. Paul stresses the importance of acknowledging God's authority and refraining from questioning His decisions.


Here are some counterpoints to the Calvinistic interpretations of Romans 9:6-20. It's important to note that different theological perspectives exist, and interpretations can vary and none of this should be taken as a judgement on anyone. Here are some arguments against a strictly Calvinistic interpretation of this passage:

• Corporate Election vs. Individual Election:
  • Calvinistic View: Some Calvinists argue for individual predestination, suggesting that God predestines specific individuals for salvation or condemnation.
  • Counterargument: Others interpret the election in Romans 9 more in terms of corporate election, focusing on God's choice of Israel as a nation rather than specific individuals. This perspective emphasizes God's covenantal relationship with a chosen people rather than an individualistic predestination.
• Context of Israel's Election:
  • Calvinistic View: Calvinists often use this passage to support the idea of unconditional election, asserting that God's choice is not based on human merit or actions.
  • Counterargument: Critics argue that the primary focus of Romans 9 is on God's choice of Israel as a nation for a specific purpose. It may not necessarily be about individual salvation but about God's plan for Israel in the redemptive story.
• God's Desire for All to be Saved:
  • Calvinistic View: Some Calvinists believe in the doctrine of limited atonement, suggesting that Christ's sacrifice is specifically for the elect.
  • Counterargument: Other theological perspectives emphasize passages elsewhere in the Bible that speak to God's desire for all to be saved (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:4) and argue against the idea that God's salvific plan is exclusively limited to a predetermined group.
• Human Responsibility:
  • Calvinistic View: Calvinism teaches the concept of irresistible grace, suggesting that those whom God chooses cannot resist His call.
  • Counterargument: Opponents argue that passages emphasizing human responsibility, such as calls to repentance and the free offer of the Gospel, should be considered alongside predestination texts. They emphasize the role of human response and the notion that God's grace can be resisted.
• God's Foreknowledge:
  • Calvinistic View: Calvinism often asserts that God's foreknowledge is based on His sovereign choice, suggesting that God foreknows because He predestines.
  • Counterargument: Other theological perspectives emphasize a different understanding of God's foreknowledge, arguing that God's knowledge of the future is not the cause of events but an awareness of what will happen based on free choices made by individuals.

It's important to recognize that the interpretations of Romans 9 can be complex, and there are various perspectives within Christianity. Different theological traditions may emphasize different aspects of the text, leading to diverse interpretations of God's sovereignty, election, and human responsibility but if Christ is all in all, I need to reflect his meekness and kindness in all of my discourse.

 

[Eleanor]

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

It is way too easy for the sinful nature still in us to speak out harshly with judgment and then rationalize it as a virtue than it is to treat our opponents with kindness. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

Presenting theological beliefs on Christian forums without being drawn into pitch battles of negative comments, innuendo, and often ad hominem arguments can be difficult. Once that happens neither party has the high road and Christ is dishonored.

Such is the condition of most forums. We do not join forums to hold hands and sing kum-bah-yah. I do not and cannot hold anyone but myself responsible for the way I reflect Christ.

As an example, I have already been told how disorganized, unresponsive, trolling and biblically ignorant I am for questioning certain theological teachings. This does not bother me, but what does bother me is the old inclination in me to defend my positions based on ego. So since there have been calls for my exegesis on Romans 9:6-29 I have decided to post mine in a reasoned and hopefully Christ-like way that does not throw anyone under the bus for what they believe.

Will it change anyone’s mind? Probably not but mind-changing is God’s purview anyway and whether one believes in Calvin’s TULIP or not is not salvific. Anyway, here it is. It is long if you want to slog through it.

Romans 9:6-20 is a passage from the New Testament of the Bible, specifically from the letter written by the Apostle Paul to the Romans. This section addresses the theme of God's sovereignty and the relationship between God and humanity, particularly in the context of God's chosen people.

Here's an exegesis (interpretation and explanation) of Romans 9:6-20:

Romans 9:6-20 (ESV):
6 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 Rebekah 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 him who calls—
12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
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.”
16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
17 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.”
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
20 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?”

Exegesis:

• Verse 6-8: Paul begins by addressing the apparent discrepancy between God's promises to Israel and the reality that not all physical descendants of Israel are part of God's chosen people. He emphasizes that being a true child of God is not based on physical descent but on the promise and God's choosing.
• Verse 9-13: Paul cites examples from the Old Testament, particularly the stories of Isaac and Jacob, to illustrate that God's choice is not dependent on human actions or merit but on His sovereign purpose. The mention of God loving Jacob and hating Esau highlights God's prerogative in choosing individuals according to His divine plan.
• Verse 14-16: Anticipating a potential objection about God's justice, Paul asserts that there is no injustice on God's part. God's mercy is not earned but given according to His sovereign will, and human effort or will does not determine God's choice.
• Verse 17-18: Paul cites the example of Pharaoh to illustrate God's sovereignty over rulers and nations. God uses individuals, even those who resist Him, to accomplish His purposes for the sake of revealing His power and making His name known.
• Verse 19-20: Paul addresses a hypothetical objection regarding human responsibility and God's will. He emphasizes the audacity of questioning God's actions, asserting that God's ways are beyond human comprehension, and humans should not challenge the Creator.

In summary, Romans 9:6-20 underscores the sovereignty of God in choosing and calling individuals according to His purpose, highlighting that God's mercy is not based on human merit but is an expression of His divine will and plan. Paul stresses the importance of acknowledging God's authority and refraining from questioning His decisions.


Here are some counterpoints to the Calvinistic interpretations of Romans 9:6-20. It's important to note that different theological perspectives exist, and interpretations can vary and none of this should be taken as a judgement on anyone. Here are some arguments against a strictly Calvinistic interpretation of this passage:

• Corporate Election vs. Individual Election:
  • Calvinistic View: Some Calvinists argue for individual predestination, suggesting that God predestines specific individuals for salvation or condemnation.
  • Counterargument: Others interpret the election in Romans 9 more in terms of corporate election, focusing on God's choice of Israel as a nation rather than specific individuals. This perspective emphasizes God's covenantal relationship with a chosen people rather than an individualistic predestination.
• Context of Israel's Election:
  • Calvinistic View: Calvinists often use this passage to support the idea of unconditional election, asserting that God's choice is not based on human merit or actions.
  • Counterargument: Critics argue that the primary focus of Romans 9 is on God's choice of Israel as a nation for a specific purpose. It may not necessarily be about individual salvation but about God's plan for Israel in the redemptive story.
• God's Desire for All to be Saved:
  • Calvinistic View: Some Calvinists believe in the doctrine of limited atonement, suggesting that Christ's sacrifice is specifically for the elect.
  • Counterargument: Other theological perspectives emphasize passages elsewhere in the Bible that speak to God's desire for all to be saved (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:4) and argue against the idea that God's salvific plan is exclusively limited to a predetermined group.
• Human Responsibility:
  • Calvinistic View: Calvinism teaches the concept of irresistible grace, suggesting that those whom God chooses cannot resist His call.
  • Counterargument: Opponents argue that passages emphasizing human responsibility, such as calls to repentance and the free offer of the Gospel, should be considered alongside predestination texts. They emphasize the role of human response and the notion that God's grace can be resisted.
• God's Foreknowledge:
  • Calvinistic View: Calvinism often asserts that God's foreknowledge is based on His sovereign choice, suggesting that God foreknows because He predestines.
  • Counterargument: Other theological perspectives emphasize a different understanding of God's foreknowledge, arguing that God's knowledge of the future is not the cause of events but an awareness of what will happen based on free choices made by individuals.

It's important to recognize that the interpretations of Romans 9 can be complex, and there are various perspectives within Christianity. Different theological traditions may emphasize different aspects of the text, leading to diverse interpretations of God's sovereignty, election, and human responsibility but if Christ is all in all, I need to reflect his meekness and kindness in all of my discourse.

Ro 9 is not hard to understand.

The issue is man's unbelief of it.

 

[Josheb]

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

False dichotomy.

What a person posts is just as important as how a person posts. Method is just as important as content, sometimes even more so.

And you have posted another op that contains waaaaay to much to be discussed in a single thread. That is bad method. Start over. You clearly have a lot on your mind, clearly have done some study, and clearly have a lot to say. What is not clear is how well you understand how internet discussion boards work. Start with a single "thesis" statement, or a single point of inquiry. Succinctly provide some evidentiary basis for that thesis, then let the rest of the unfolding thread serve as your opportunity to exhaust your argument one point at a time.

An Alternative Exegesis of Romans 9:6-29.

Red herring.

A "red herring" is any information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.

When exegesis is practiced according to its long-held and well-established precepts it is supposed to lead to a single conclusion, not multiple ones. That is the whole point of exegesis! The premise of "alternatives" is something that should be first proven to exist, not assumed. Since the title of this op assumes an alternative exegesis exists it begs the question (assumes something not in evidence, assumes something needing first to be proven). Presuppositionally speaking, the assumption of an alternative is one of the conditions that qualifies as eisegesis and that - by definition - disqualifies whatever ensues as exegesis. In other words,


Bad method.


Bad method in multiple ways. So..... if you really, truly are convinced "God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences," then start over and prove it demonstrably because this op demonstrates the exact opposite of a concern for the way you discuss things AND sound exegesis.

Recommendation: Cut out the entire last half of the opening post because it has nothing to do with exegesis. It's a list of theological positions, not an examination of scripture. Everything from "Here are some counterpoints....." needs to go IF this op is genuinely about "an alternative exegesis" and not a trolling rag on Calvinism hidden behind a falsely stated intent. Understand what I am saying. By opening up with the statement you're aware God wants you to do better you have lied to all of us by telling us this is going to be about exegesis when it's realy about Cal-criticism.

IF you go through the passage (Rom. 9:6-29) verse by verse having correctly identified the text and its stated contexts there will be very little, if any, disagreement and any disagreement that does occur will happen first within you and within us because on any and all occasions when God's word states "X" and we believe "Y," that is not a disagreement between you and another.

It is a disagreement between you and God's word.

The exact same measure applies to each and every one of us.

That is good method.

 

[Josheb]

In summary, Romans 9:6-20 underscores the sovereignty of God in choosing and calling individuals according to His purpose, highlighting that God's mercy is not based on human merit but is an expression of His divine will and plan. Paul stresses the importance of acknowledging God's authority and refraining from questioning His decisions.

That may be true, but do you realize the passage in question nowhere mentions "sovereignty," or "choosing," and the only mention of any "calling" is specifically and explicitly about the caller, not the calling? In other words, are you aware that this supposed "alternative exegesis" has added a pile of stuff to its interpretation that is nowhere found in the text itself?

That is not exegesis. It's not exegesis of any kind, alternative or not.

I am not saying your conclusion(s) is incorrect. I am saying it was not arrived at by exegesis.






Part of the problem is starting with verse6 without having first stated the context leading up to the "But....." The Romans 9 narrative follows on the heals of Paul having just stated nothing can separate a person from the love of God found in Christ (Rom. 8:38-39) and that narrative concludes a narrative that is six chapters long! Having established all that has said leading up to chapter 9 Paul then moves forward to another topic, but one that is firmly couched in his Romans 3-8 narrative. In addition to the fact no one in Christ can be separated from God, Paul has also established the means of righteousness and justification found in Christ. In Romans 9 he states,

Romans 9:1-5 ESV
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 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. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Notice that Paul has qualified this "Israel" as "kinsmen according to the flesh." This stands in stark contrast and comparison to his "not all Israel is Israel," and what he says in the passage specified by the op wherein Paul expounds on the Israel to whom the promises were made and apply being the Israel of promise. In other words, Paul weeps for Israel of the flesh knowing the promises are for the Israel of promise.



I can walk with you through the text cited in the op but you'll have to start over because the opening post is a mess. Before you decide I'd like you to consider two relevant points. The first is that Israel of the flesh had been separated from God. The second is that there is a sense in which "Israel" is Jesus.

Hosea 11:1 ESV
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

This is a prophetic statement God inspired Hosea to declare and as far as the old covenant Jewish reader understood it was about something that had occurred in the Mosaic era. Writing under a later inspiration by God the gospel author Matthew, however, explained this prophecy pertained to and was fulfilled by Christ.

Matthew 2:13-15 ESV
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Jesus is Israel. This is a third definition of the name "Israel;" one that occurs different from the bloodline, geo-political nation-state definition and the definition of promise. The name "Israel" means "God perseveres." The first person called "Israel" was Jacob (Gen. 32), not the people who left Egypt for the promised land. Give consideration to ALL that God has said defining Israel when you read, examine, and explain the Romans 9:6-29 text.

Next, we all know you have issues with Calvinism because that has been made clear in your prior ops. I would, therefore, ask you to re-read the Romans 9:6-29 text and whatever is stated in each verse ask yourself line-by-line, "Does the verse state God did it or does the verse state the sinner did it?" Note, for example, both choosing and calling are done by God and God alone. In other words, both choosing and calling are monergistic and never synergistic. If you make two columns and tally what is God-done and what is specifically sinner-done then you'll be able to apply the text soteriologically.

Lastly, and this is necessary and unequivocal, whatever parts of the passage apply to Israel of the flesh versus Israel of promise.... they all occur in the context of a God-initiated covenant that was monergistically made. Nothing in the passage applies to the atheist. That means there are limits to how much, where, and when this passage can be applied soteriologically. You cannot take a passage written about people already, inherently living in a covenant relationship with God and apply it to people utterly lacking in any form of that relationship.

So.... I hope you can now see how messed up this op really is and how necessary it is to start over. I recommend you start an entirely new thread and stick solely to the Romans 9 text you want and explain your "exegesis." Let the conclusions come when and only when the text has been correctly exegeted and open yourself to any and all of the valid input others may contribute. Ignore the nonsense (even when it comes from me ). Accept what is demonstrably provable (even when it comes from me ).


Proverbs 27:5-6, 17
Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy...... Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.



.

 

[Josheb]

As an example, I have already been told how disorganized, unresponsive, trolling and biblically ignorant I am for questioning certain theological teachings.

That is incorrect and untrue.

You were told those things because straw men were questioned after the straw men were wrongly attributed as fact and truth. Huge difference. The problem you face is substantive and important. The op opens with a confession of awareness God wants your method to change but when others are deemed your adversaries and those supposed adversaries are mischaracterized and their beliefs misrepresented that is ALL bad method. It is ALL practices God wants changed.

Just stop it.

Two rules can guide you. First.....

Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.

Second, THE best case ANY of us can make for the position(s) we hold is...

a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.


Wherever those two precepts are to the ensuing discussion will always be better then the discussions where they are ignored. That is what God wants from you (and all the rest of us). It will not stop disagreement, but it will minimize divisiveness.

1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

Disagreement in and of itself is not a bad thing. When it runs into things like enmity and divisiveness described in Galatians 5 it's a problem. You should realize you have come into a forum and for two weeks trashed your fellow believers with falsehoods. You should also understand our efforts to correct both the content and the method were done with patience, kindness, forbearance, hope, and trust in you and the Spirit that is at work in us all.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

However imperfectly on our part, love was shown by those attacked.

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing that change manifested in the posts and I do not expect perfection the first time change is attempted.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

That may be true, but do you realize the passage in question nowhere mentions "sovereignty," or "choosing," and the only mention of any "calling" is specifically and explicitly about the caller, not the calling? In other words, are you aware that this supposed "alternative exegesis" has added a pile of stuff to its interpretation that is nowhere found in the text itself?

That is not exegesis. It's not exegesis of any kind, alternative or not.

I am not saying your conclusion(s) is incorrect. I am saying it was not arrived at by exegesis.

Although I disagree with your opinion, I appreciate understanding how you feel.

Part of the problem is starting with verse6 without having first stated the context leading up to the "But....." The Romans 9 narrative follows on the heals of Paul having just stated nothing can separate a person from the love of God found in Christ (Rom. 8:38-39) and that narrative concludes a narrative that is six chapters long! Having established all that has said leading up to chapter 9 Paul then moves forward to another topic, but one that is firmly couched in his Romans 3-8 narrative. In addition to the fact no one in Christ can be separated from God, Paul has also established the means of righteousness and justification found in Christ. In Romans 9 he states,

One of the main purposes of Romans was to unite the gentile believers with the Jewish ones. It is a theme throughout Paul's writings. Romans 9:1-5 shows Paul's anguish over physical Israel's being cut off. Verse 6 begins Paul's defense of God's purpose not being thwarted by this but being fulfilled by it. It would seem a mistake to me to assume that this is the only way God's will could have been fulfilled. It could also have been fulfilled by Isreal's submission to God.

Romans 9:1-5 ESV
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 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. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Notice that Paul has qualified this "Israel" as "kinsmen according to the flesh." This stands in stark contrast and comparison to his "not all Israel is Israel," and what he says in the passage specified by the op wherein Paul expounds on the Israel to whom the promises were made and apply being the Israel of promise. In other words, Paul weeps for Israel of the flesh knowing the promises are for the Israel of promise.

This is Paul's point. He does not apply this individually but instead collectively.

I can walk with you through the text cited in the op but you'll have to start over because the opening post is a mess. Before you decide I'd like you to consider two relevant points. The first is that Israel of the flesh had been separated from God. The second is that there is a sense in which "Israel" is Jesus.

Characterizing it as a mess because you think so is counterproductive. You are expressing your offensive opinion as fact. I can't work with that because it only would lead to inkind responses which I desire to avoid.

Hosea 11:1 ESV
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

This is a prophetic statement God inspired Hosea to declare and as far as the old covenant Jewish reader understood it was about something that had occurred in the Mosaic era. Writing under a later inspiration by God the gospel author Matthew, however, explained this prophecy pertained to and was fulfilled by Christ.

Matthew 2:13-15 ESV
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Jesus is Israel. This is a third definition of the name "Israel;" one that occurs different from the bloodline, geo-political nation-state definition and the definition of promise. The name "Israel" means "God perseveres." The first person called "Israel" was Jacob (Gen. 32), not the people who left Egypt for the promised land. Give consideration to ALL that God has said defining Israel when you read, examine, and explain the Romans 9:6-29 text.

I think you are overextending metaphors. Biblical texts often have many different meanings and contexts. You say that Israel is Jesus, are you sure you want to stick to that blanket statement? Or would you agree that only under certain circumstances? In Hosea 11:2 shall we continue to call Isreal Jesus? If by the second verse in Hosea 11, we no longer call Isreal Jesus how can we then apply it to Romans 9. The connective tissues of your argument seem to be a bit tenuous. I do not believe that Isreal and Christ are always synonymous and I do not see that in Romas 9 in any way.

Next, we all know you have issues with Calvinism because that has been made clear in your prior ops. I would, therefore, ask you to re-read the Romans 9:6-29 text and whatever is stated in each verse ask yourself line-by-line, "Does the verse state God did it or does the verse state the sinner did it?" Note, for example, both choosing and calling are done by God and God alone. In other words, both choosing and calling are monergistic and never synergistic. If you make two columns and tally what is God-done and what is specifically sinner-done then you'll be able to apply the text soteriologically.

You are assuming that the passage is individualistic rather than collective. You should do the same with Hebrews 6 which is defiantly individualistic. I am sure you are aware that the bible often refers to nations by the name of its progenitors. The Jews were often called Israel and the bible often calls the Edomites, Edom, or Esau so to posit that Romans 9 is collective is not at all absurd. Yes, I have disagreements with parts of TULIP thus we have discussions about it. But that should not be misinterpreted as a judgment of any kind. It is not salvific.

The choosing and calling do not negate a person's rejection of that choosing or calling. Whether one submits to God or resists God does not thwart the purposes of God and this is what I see born out in Romans 9. Whether Israel had accepted Christ or not, it would have led to the same completion of God's will and purpose.

Lastly, and this is necessary and unequivocal, whatever parts of the passage apply to Israel of the flesh versus Israel of promise.... they all occur in the context of a God-initiated covenant that was monergistically made. Nothing in the passage applies to the atheist. That means there are limits to how much, where, and when this passage can be applied soteriologically. You cannot take a passage written about people already, inherently living in a covenant relationship with God and apply it to people utterly lacking in any form of that relationship.

I see no relationship hear with the point I was making. Perhaps you can explain.

So.... I hope you can now see how messed up this op really is and how necessary it is to start over.

Do you not see that your words here are somewhat arrogant, condescending, and offensive? I just do not desire to deal with ad hominem fallacies since they lead nowhere.

I recommend you start an entirely new thread and stick solely to the Romans 9 text you want and explain your "exegesis." Let the conclusions come when and only when the text has been correctly exegeted and open yourself to any and all of the valid input others may contribute. Ignore the nonsense (even when it comes from me ). Accept what is demonstrably provable (even when it comes from me ).

I recommend that you step back a bit and try to understand what I was saying in my OP. What should my response be? Should I call your response a train wreck or a dumpster fire? Where would that lead? If we cannot be respectful of each other then we should not continue.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

False dichotomy.

What a person posts is just as important as how a person posts. Method is just as important as content, sometimes even more so.

False assumption. They way we post reveals the heart.

And you have posted another op that contains waaaaay to much to be discussed in a single thread. That is bad method.

This is a good method for it completes the thought. If one wishes to address certain points. Simply reply to those points.

Start over.

Read it again and think about it.

You clearly have a lot on your mind, clearly have done some study, and clearly have a lot to say. What is not clear is how well you understand how internet discussion boards work.

I understand perfectly and I had a point to make in doing it this way. The internet has a short attention span.

Start with a single "thesis" statement, or a single point of inquiry. Succinctly provide some evidentiary basis for that thesis, then let the rest of the unfolding thread serve as your opportunity to exhaust your argument one point at a time.

No, I laid it all out to make a point.

Red herring.

A "red herring" is any information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.

Judgementalism.

The attitude that one can read the motives of others and decide what is and wat isn't because they believe it to be so.

When exegesis is practiced according to its long-held and well-established precepts it is supposed to lead to a single conclusion, not multiple ones.

You missed the single point.

That is the whole point of exegesis! The premise of "alternatives" is something that should be first proven to exist, not assumed. Since the title of this op assumes an alternative exegesis exists it begs the question (assumes something not in evidence, assumes something needing first to be proven). Presuppositionally speaking, the assumption of an alternative is one of the conditions that qualifies as eisegesis and that - by definition - disqualifies whatever ensues as exegesis. In other words,

LOL, It is self-evident that it exists because I provided one.

Bad method.

Bad method in multiple ways. So..... if you really, truly are convinced "God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences," then start over and prove it demonstrably because this op demonstrates the exact opposite of a concern for the way you discuss things AND sound exegesis.

I find it curious that you should personalize this. Why did you? I am sorry that you took it personally and I don't understand why you did. Since you are begging the questions when you say, "this op demonstrates the exact opposite of a concern for the way you discuss things AND sound exegesis." Perhaps you could start over but this time read the OP dispassionately and disengage it from yourself from it.

Recommendation: Cut out the entire last half of the opening post because it has nothing to do with exegesis.

Recommendation: carefully consider the last half of the opening post and what it is saying. Stop trying to intellectualize everything and see what God is calling all of us to be.

It's a list of theological positions, not an examination of scripture. Everything from "Here are some counterpoints....." needs to go IF this op is genuinely about "an alternative exegesis" and not a trolling rag on Calvinism hidden behind a falsely stated intent. Understand what I am saying. By opening up with the statement you're aware God wants you to do better you have lied to all of us by telling us this is going to be about exegesis when it's realy about Cal-criticism.

We are all in danger of worshiping our theology rather than God. You seem to always take criticism of Calvinism as a personal affront. You have spent more time trying to "instruct me' rather than addressing the points of the OP. You never gave it a fair shake but instead tried to dismiss it by critiquing its structure and organization according to your definitions. Why not deal with what was being said?

IF you go through the passage (Rom. 9:6-29) verse by verse having correctly identified the text and its stated contexts there will be very little, if any, disagreement and any disagreement that does occur will happen first within you and within us because on any and all occasions when God's word states "X" and we believe "Y," that is not a disagreement between you and another.

This is begging the question. Who is going to judge whether a text has been correctly identified the text and its stated contexts? Should it be me? Or are you going to take the gavel?

It is a disagreement between you and God's word.

The exact same measure applies to each and every one of us.

That is good method.

More begging the question. Did God tell you this?

The bottom line is, that you have proven the point that no amount or manner of exegesis will change anyone's mind. That belongs to God. The only thing you and I will end up doing is devolving into more continuous condescending arguments. There is no purpose in that. It is not of Christ.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Ro 9 is not hard to understand.

The issue is man's unbelief of it.

Men tend to choose how they want to believe it and what else they may need to ignore to believe it.

 

[Arial]

I need to reflect his meekness and kindness in all of my discourse.

Meekness and kindness are ambiguous words. Some consider pointing out how another is failing to support a claim or engage in constructive and equal dialog as being unkind. Though when instructing and correcting their children for example, they would not look at it that way. Some see meek as being a "yes" person, never asserting their views in strong or assertive ways---though of course when Jesus did that it was not seen that way and yet He calls Himself meek.

Before I begin going through your post point by point, I must point out that what was given was not an exegesis, but simply two points of view. both given without either one explaining how these differing views were arrived at. I am not knocking the OP---just saying.

Verse 6-8: Paul begins by addressing the apparent discrepancy between God's promises to Israel and the reality that not all physical descendants of Israel are part of God's chosen people. He emphasizes that being a true child of God is not based on physical descent but on the promise and God's choosing.

Paul does not begin in verse 6. He begins in Romans 1:1. This is a letter. He is building the groundwork for everything he says, and this is the groundwork. Verse 6 begins, "But it is not as though---" which indicates everything He has built upon up to that point is what resulted in the "but" which is followed by a "then,then". a "but", a "then,then" all the way through Romans. And he is teaching doctrine. So one must assume doctrine is important. We are told to know it, to defend it, contend for it, keep away the wolves from it. The doctrine he is teaching is those same doctrines we find in the TULIP. He anticipates the animosity he will experience and probably already has, at every turn, and counters them with a form of "May it never be!" as accusations are made against God because of what he is teaching. The very same ones made today.

Now, I could go through all that and illustrate it, and maybe I will at some point. It would have to be in its own thread as it needs to be exhaustive and carefully supported---therefore very long. It has to start at the beginning of the book of Romans and go all the way through it. Possibly I will be able to touch on some points as I go through the OP.

But I am not sure what it is you intend by the post. Simply a presentation of the two views, or a discussion and debate over the two views.

 

[Arial]

Calvinistic View: Calvinism teaches the concept of irresistible grace, suggesting that those whom God chooses cannot resist His call.

Your bias is showing. Calvinism teaches that those whom God chooses won't resist His call. As opposed to your "cannot." "My sheep hear My voice and follow me." The reason they won't resist is because in the doctrine, God predestines them to salvation, and calls them to salvation because He has predestined them, and therefore they are called and they do hear, and they do follow.

• • Counterargument: Other theological perspectives emphasize a different understanding of God's foreknowledge, arguing that God's knowledge of the future is not the cause of events but an awareness of what will happen based on free choices made by individuals.

Then He isn't omniscient. He had to learn something----who it was who were worthy of His love. and then He had to act accordingly. So, also not omnipotent.

 

[Arial]

You are assuming that the passage is individualistic rather than collective. You should do the same with Hebrews 6 which is defiantly individualistic. I am sure you are aware that the bible often refers to nations by the name of its progenitors.

Paul makes clear he is talking about the election of individuals, not nations, when he says in verses 21-24, which were left out of the discussion. 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 know 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."

 

[Josheb]

False assumption.

Nope. It is not a false assumption. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Matthew 21:28-32
"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go work today in the vineyard.' "And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he regretted it and went. "The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, 'I will, sir'; but he did not go. "Which of the two did the will of his father?" They *said, "The first." Jesus *said to them, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. "For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.

Philippians 1:12-18
Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice....

Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are permitted, but not all things are of benefit. All things are permitted, but not all things build people up.


Scripture describes this many ways at many times. The exact same view can be expressed in many ways, but not all ways bear fruit. One method can, alternatively, teach truth of falsehood. Both sound content and sound method are necessary.

They way we post reveals the heart.

Which is exactly what I said.

Luke 6:45
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.

And I have often said that to the disdain of many. The problem is all that Cal-ragging reveals the critic's heart, and it is best for you to look first at the log, not the speck. The op does, after all, open with the statement, "...God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse."

It's not okay to come into a forum and immediately start ragging on others with falsehoods while refusing to learn.




More importantly, more saliently, more germanely, two posts were spent responding to my exhortations when you should be exegeting Romans 9. Prepare yourself because this forum is filled with Cals and they are ALL going to take issue with this op. Focus. I am trying to help so don't cr@p on my gift. Take what you can accept and apply it here and now on the topic of Romans 9's exegesis. Discard the rest or store it away until its value is recognized. If it hasn't yet been realized, I do not post like most others. Irritates some, interests others. I do not care which.

I'll take up the few statements in Posts 6 and 7 that actually pertain to exegesis in separate posts.

 

[Josheb]

One of the main purposes of Romans was to unite the gentile believers with the Jewish ones.

Perhaps, but you must prove that exegetically, not assume it or treat it as a given.

I think you are wrong. I do not read anything in Romans leading me to think the Gentile and Jewish converts were not united. There is certainly nothing in Romans 8 or 9 stating any division, disunity, or schism relevant to the Romans 9 text. There are epistles that do speak quite bluntly to divisions that existed in those locales at those times, but Romans is not one of them. The book of Romans was written after the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Galatians letters where most of the divisions were addressed. The Roman congregations were likely predominantly Gentile converts and Paul opens the letter stating he was a bondservant and apostle of Christ, through whom he'd received the grace, "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Paul explicitly states, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16) and....

Romans 2:9-11
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

So, yes, it could be inferred there was some divide existing in Rome between the Jewish converts and the Gentile converts but nowhere does Romans state that is the main purpose of the letter. You have to prove that claim and prove it with scripture in Romans. That is exegesis. Don't assume it, prove it.

What Paul does with God's impartiality - and any real or perceived disunity - is important because he speaks of God's impartiality by writing some fairly confrontational words to those who call themselves Jews (implying there were that sort of Christian in the Roman ecclesia). So, there were Christians who'd converted from Judaism who still called themselves Jews and the inference of Romans 2 is that they had an allegiance to the Law that was problematic for any Christian (not just Jewish converts). Paul does not juxtapose Jews against Gentiles. Paul does not even juxtapose ALL Jewish converts against an alternative. Paul is selective. He juxtaposes those who call themselves Jews, and he further defines what he means by describing the type of formerly Jewish Christian to which he is referring: the kind who "rely upon the Law and boast in God." That would be some Jewish converts, not all Jewish converts.

So.... if we were to infer some of the Romans epistle's content is intended to unify the Roman readers then, at best, we could infer the effort applied only to some and not all and the problem existed predominantly on the Jewish side of the divide. That would make sense since throughout the Old Testament, and throughout the gospels, one of the chief problems existing in Judaism was the poles of legalism and hypocrisy.

Hence Paul taking up the next six chapters with an exposition of the Law's place in Christ.

So, no, one of Paul's main purposes was not to unite Gentile believers with the Jewish ones. The Romans 2 text tells us why Paul was writing.

Romans 2:5-10
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

His purpose was eschatological, not soteriological or ecclesiological. Take note of this because 1) Christians mistakenly conflate, confuse, and confound eschatology and soteriology quite often, 2) this is the Arm v Cal board where soteriology is the topic of discussion, NOT eschatology, and 3) if you happen to be Dispensationalist (and I have no clue what you believe in that regard) then you likely have been taught and trained to do a lot of errant conflation and taught and trained to elevate eschatology and ecclesiology above soteriology. That is what Dispensationalism does openly (I can provide proof of that claim if you like. Just ask).

Sometimes salvation and end-times overlap and there is always a salvific component to any end-times text in scripture but, doctrinally speaking, eschatology is not salvation. Romans 2 tells us Paul was writing, in part, to address a pending tribulation that all the Christians in Rome would face. This, in turn, is important for our discussion of the Romans 9 text because Romans 9 is written to a group of people who were already saved by Christ from sin and wrath. Any "alternative exegesis" is going to have to sort out the eschatological from the soteriological" when Paul writes "only a remnant of them will be saved," because that clause occurs in the explicitly stated context of.... "only a remnant of them will be saved for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay" (Rom. 9:27-28).

One of the main purposes of Romans was to unite the gentile believers with the Jewish ones.

The text proves otherwise and if the claim is going to be made then the onus is on you to prove that claim with exegetically rendered scripture, and that was not done.


So, again, I point out this is likely to be an alternative eisegesis, not an exegesis. If you are going to exegete the text, then do so. Do not make baseless claims. Post the basis for claims made and use correctly rendered scripture to do so.

 

[Arial]

Men tend to choose how they want to believe it and what else they may need to ignore to believe it.

That does not change the fact that two opposing views are not equally valid. They may both be wrong, but they cannot both be right. What determines which one is what God means or whether He means something else entirely, is when it is weighted against the whole counsel of God,and that in the best case scenario should be done in a systematic way: comparing all scriptures on the same topic, and keeping them also consistent with who God reveals Himself to be.

For example, if God shows us in the creation account that He created all that is, that He established boundaries for His creation, as we see in day and night (time), and created those boundaries, and created it all from nothing, then we know that He alone is eternal and self existent. We know from this account that He sustains all things that He creates, and that nothing exists or has purpose or life, except in Him. He owns it all, it belongs to Him. If He tells us again, and again, that He is sovereign over all of it, sovereign over mankind, the storms, the seas, the hearts of men, that He does whatever it is His pleasure and will to do in accomplishing His purpose, then no doctrine we derive from His word can violate or infringe upon, or diminish this. That is step one. And one cannot give an interpretation of Romans 9 as being about individuals, as you correctly do in the OP, and then later say, as you did, no it is about nations. And one cannot correctly identify those verses as saying God always does according to His will and no one can talk back to Him, as you did, and at the same constantly talk back to Him if He does not allow man's will to supercede His. And also say that it does.

We cannot derive a truthful doctrine by simply making something up, such as in order for him to be loving and fair He chooses to give His will over to the will of man.I find that particularly disturbing when it comes to sending His Son to the cross, mostly in futility. We cannot make up a doctrine that says that He did this, and make up a reason for Him doing so. If He did that, He would tell us plainly, instead of telling us the opposite. We must make our doctrines fit God, not God fit our doctrines.

 

[Josheb]

I think you are overextending metaphors.

I posted scripture and I posted scripture that scripture itself connects. I did not "extend, " "overextend," or "metaphor" anything on my own. What scripture plainly states will be accepted or it won't. The facts are exactly as I posted.

• Jacob is the first person called Israel.
• The name "Israel" means "God perseveres."
• The Hebrews were not called "Israel" until long after Jacob had died and long after they'd left Egypt.
• Matthew, not Josheb, connected Hosea 1:11 to Jesus and thereby called him Israel.
• Paul explicitly stated not all Israel is Israel and he defined the Israel that is Israel.
• Paul also explicitly stated a remnant would be saved.

I did not add to or subtract one word from any of those texts. I simply brought them to everyone's attention because those are what Paul was drawing from. Paul, the former Pharisee indwelt with God's Spirit, surely did. Either prove the points incorrect or accept them as correct and true.

I think you are overextending metaphors.

Great. What can you prove?

I can prove every point I made. I can and I did, and I did it with scripture read exactly as written. No inferences other than those reported by the texts themselves. Any thinking does not bow to the text of scripture has no basis for thinking metaphors were overextended.




One more point: There is A LOT that the OT and NT state about the identity of the Israel that is Israel, but I sampled only a very small portion of it. I picked just a handful of points because those are the main ones referenced by the book of Romans. I took what Romans states and looked at its self-referenced references. That is called exegesis. What I did not do is either randomly or doctrinally select a passage because I wanted to prove something not actually stated or not actually referenced.

If you can prove one of those points flawed, then do so but otherwise don't tell me opinions again. YOU set up this op as an exegesis, not opinion. Do the exegesis.

 

[Josheb]

Romans 9:1-5 shows Paul's anguish over physical Israel's being cut off.

Yes, and it's an eschatological cut-off, not a soteriological one.


Any Jew could come to Christ at any time. All they need do is believe in Jesus (for now I will forsake the monergist-synergist divide). Those who believe will be saved...... from sin. Believing in Jesus does not, however, save a person from tribulation.


So far you and I have discussed small portions of the Romans text that precedes chapter 9, but the fact is chapter 9 is the beginning of a narrative that covers three chapters (Romans 9, 10, and 11), and in chapter 11 we find the statement, "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace." (Rom. 11:5). The "remnant" of Israel that would be saved was a remnant exist at the present time when Paul wrote to the Romans, and that remnant stood in stark contrast to "all Israel will be saved."



This is the soteriology board. This is not the eschatology board. You hope to question Calvinist soteriology and this op intends to do so with a small portion of one letter that is primarily eschatological and applies solely to people already living in a covenant relationship with God - none of which is applicable to atheists. This course of action was chosen in a forum full of Spirit-filled, well-read, educated, and experienced monergists.

You have your work cut out for you.

 

[Josheb]

It would seem a mistake to me to assume that this is the only way God's will could have been fulfilled.

Then do not make mistakes, make assumptions, define God apart from scripture, or try to convince anyone of your opinion when you have stated this is supposed to be an exegesis.

It could also have been fulfilled by Israel's submission to God.

Perhaps, but the onus is on you to prove that and prove it with an exegesis of Romans 9:6-28.

As far as exegesis goes, very little is in evidence. Surely, something better than "I think..." and "It seems to me..." can be posted because those are both antitheses of exegesis.

 

[Josheb]

This is Paul's point. He does not apply this individually but instead collectively.

Then the correct response is, "That is correct, Josh. What you posted is 100% correct and I completely agree."

And then you explain how that is an "alternative exegesis."

Because if we agree then it is not an alternative exegesis .

This is Paul's point. He does not apply this individually but instead collectively.

Hmmm... but you are going to use the collective application to argue Calvinist soteriology is incorrect? ..... when Calvinist soteriology says absolutely nothing about collective salvation from sin? Is that what we're supposed to understand?



I am an all eyes and ears. I cannot wait to read that exegesis, but I have to say, so far, this thread isn't anywhere close to making that case and it looks like a very poor choice was made picking Romans 9 for that purpose. If Paul's point is a collective application and Calvinism says nothing about collective salvation you are arguing a red herring.

 

[Josheb]

Men tend to choose how they want to believe it and what else they may need to ignore to believe it.

Post 6, 7, and 8 contain no scripture, and therefore no exegesis. The title of this thread states...

An Alternative Exegesis of Romans 9:2-29

We're all waiting.

Exegesis:

• Verse 6-8: Paul begins by addressing the apparent discrepancy between God's promises to Israel and the reality that not all physical descendants of Israel are part of God's chosen people. He emphasizes that being a true child of God is not based on physical descent but on the promise and God's choosing.
• Verse 9-13: Paul cites examples from the Old Testament, particularly the stories of Isaac and Jacob, to illustrate that God's choice is not dependent on human actions or merit but on His sovereign purpose. The mention of God loving Jacob and hating Esau highlights God's prerogative in choosing individuals according to His divine plan.
• Verse 14-16: Anticipating a potential objection about God's justice, Paul asserts that there is no injustice on God's part. God's mercy is not earned but given according to His sovereign will, and human effort or will does not determine God's choice.
• Verse 17-18: Paul cites the example of Pharaoh to illustrate God's sovereignty over rulers and nations. God uses individuals, even those who resist Him, to accomplish His purposes for the sake of revealing His power and making His name known.
• Verse 19-20: Paul addresses a hypothetical objection regarding human responsibility and God's will. He emphasizes the audacity of questioning God's actions, asserting that God's ways are beyond human comprehension, and humans should not challenge the Creator.

In summary, Romans 9:6-20 underscores the sovereignty of God in choosing and calling individuals according to His purpose, highlighting that God's mercy is not based on human merit but is an expression of His divine will and plan. Paul stresses the importance of acknowledging God's authority and refraining from questioning His decisions.

That is not exegesis. Some of those statements are true and correct but they are not exegetically demonstrated to be so.

Paul cites examples from the Old Testament, particularly the stories of Isaac and Jacob, to illustrate that God's choice is not dependent on human actions or merit but on His sovereign purpose.

LOL!

That is Calvinism in a nutshell! Salvation does not depend on how a person acts (or wills) but on God, God's choice, God's purpose and God's will.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Then do not make mistakes, make assumptions, define God apart from scripture, or try to convince anyone of your opinion when you have stated this is supposed to be an exegesis.

And yet we all do including you. Sure, you may not admit it and you may not even be aware of it. But no matter how we intellectualize it or rationalize it we come up with ways of favoring certain passages and explaining away inconvenient ones.