An alternate exegesis of Romans 9:6-29

[Mr GLee]

Placing deeds before the Gospel was the problem that replaced Christ with human efforts. Has not only the church and the Apostle condemned such a perverted outlook, but Christ himself? No flesh will be justified through the Law, Paul says, several times throughout his epistles. Christ called the Pharisees who were looked upon as the most righteous devoted men of God, white wash tombs filled with dead men bones, why?

It would seem it is at that point you error .On one hand you say you protect the integrity of sola scriptura then you show you do not .and look to the church rather than the one good teaching master Christ our Holy Father. . not seen

Replacing or adding to the work of the Holy Spirit as if it was the church or apostles that condemn and not God alone. God will not share his glory with dying mankind .

In that way Christ the Spirit of God can use or move a unbeliever to preach the gospel just as easily of one that does have faith as it is written (sola scriptura)

God has no needs but satisfies all the needs of His born again children

The apostles as dying mankind are under a curse the appointment to die once. they are as nothin no power from there dying flesh. They preach. Only God does the teaching, forgiving and rebuking and bringing to our minds the previous thing he has taught us .

He warns of of the antichrist false apostle, false prophets that teach oral tradition of dying mankind .(antichrists)

We receive no reward from men dead in there trespass and sin.

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

 

[Arial]

John Calvin said, "I say, then, that grace is not offered to us in such a way that afterwards we have the option either to submit or to resist."

If one receives the gift of God, they have eternal life.

Was that post meant for Calvin?

 

[Arial]

Here he is speaking of Israel. The Children of Promise. God calls his kingdom from the Jews and the Gentiles.

The "us" is the congregation he is writing to and who read the letter. Is He calling a kingdom or is He calling individuals into the kingdom? The kingdom already exists and has no need of being called.

 

[Mr GLee]

The "us" is the congregation he is writing to and who read the letter. Is He calling a kingdom or is He calling individuals into the kingdom? The kingdom already exists and has no need of being called.

Hi I would offer.

It seems like another of "how do we look at the word faith /power" in respect the unseen eternal things of God .

Many focus on what the eyes see the temporal as if the kingdom did come by observing the historical alone. The Father knew beforehand that he would be replaced by the temporal dying things seen. . oral traditions .The reason he spoke in parables which without he spoke not

Parables are designed to teach us how to walk or understand after the unseen eternal things of God .Hid from natural unconverted mankind

A teaching lesson to the apostles coming out from under the oral traditons of dying fathers that made sola scriptura to no efect with and through thier commandments of dying mankind

On one occasion in Luke 9 after bringing one parable and another again and again .At one time the Apostles were so confused that they looked to a new "who is the greatest" .They must of thought Jesus the Son of man was of his rocker . Jesus the most misunderstood person in the whole word .Even his own family must've thought he was of his rokerker speaking parable as prophecy hiding the gospel understand .

When finished with the last parable showing again the apostles had no understanding of faith,
Jesus the Son man looked as though he was going to earthy Jerusalem but went to the gentiles to show the world it's not a Jewish religion.

In their unbelief they demanded the Son of man bring down fire and destroy all the gentiles ,He the rebuked them for the ungodly faithless manner again parables teach us how to define faith (Christ.s not of us faithless, powerless )

Note. . . (PURPLE) in parenthesis by added comment

43 And they were all amazed (not believe) at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered (not believe no faith ) every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples, Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. (Jesus the son of man standing right in front of them And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. The Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit of God defines the us and those who go from us , not the dying apostles) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.(faithless)

In that way he has not left us as orphans without a 20/20 prescription how to rightly divide the parables using the temporal historical to give us the eternal unseen Spiritual work of the faith of Christ

Don't leave earth without the prescription or bind it on our new born again heart .

Things seen mixed with the unseen eternal. No mixing no gospel rest. Hebrew 4:1-20

2 Corinthians 4: 16-18 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward (temporal) man perish, yet the inward man (born again) is renewed day by day.For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Again he rebuked the apostles' hiding the unseen things of dying mankind. They eventually did learn how to walk by the faith of Christ as it is writen Rather than bring fire to the gentiles they were moved to bring the gospel the water of the word

 

[Arial]

Hi I would offer.

It seems like another of "how do we look at the word faith /power" in respect the unseen eternal things of God .

Many focus on what the eyes see the temporal as if the kingdom did come by observing the historical alone. The Father knew beforehand that he would be replaced by the temporal dying things seen. . oral traditions .The reason he spoke in parables which without he spoke not

Parables are designed to teach us how to walk or understand after the unseen eternal things of God .Hid from natural unconverted mankind

A teaching lesson to the apostles coming out from under the oral traditons of dying fathers that made sola scriptura to no efect with and through thier commandments of dying mankind

On one occasion in Luke 9 after bringing one parable and another again and again .At one time the Apostles were so confused that they looked to a new "who is the greatest" .They must of thought Jesus the Son of man was of his rocker . Jesus the most misunderstood person in the whole word .Even his own family must've thought he was of his rokerker speaking parable as prophecy hiding the gospel understand .

When finished with the last parable showing again the apostles had no understanding of faith,
Jesus the Son man looked as though he was going to earthy Jerusalem but went to the gentiles to show the world it's not a Jewish religion.

In their unbelief they demanded the Son of man bring down fire and destroy all the gentiles ,He the rebuked them for the ungodly faithless manner again parables teach us how to define faith (Christ.s not of us faithless, powerless )

Note. . . (PURPLE) in parenthesis by added comment

43 And they were all amazed (not believe) at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered (not believe no faith ) every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples, Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. (Jesus the son of man standing right in front of them And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. The Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit of God defines the us and those who go from us , not the dying apostles) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.(faithless)

In that way he has not left us as orphans without a 20/20 prescription how to rightly divide the parables using the temporal historical to give us the eternal unseen Spiritual work of the faith of Christ

Don't leave earth without the prescription or bind it on our new born again heart .

Things seen mixed with the unseen eternal. No mixing no gospel rest. Hebrew 4:1-20

2 Corinthians 4: 16-18 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward (temporal) man perish, yet the inward man (born again) is renewed day by day.For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Again he rebuked the apostles' hiding the unseen things of dying mankind. They eventually did learn how to walk by the faith of Christ as it is writen Rather than bring fire to the gentiles they were moved to bring the gospel the water of the word

Romans 9 is not a parable, the "us" is still the ones Paul is writing to, both Jew and Gentile Christians, I see no connection in this post to the one it is responding to or to the OP.

 

[Arial]

This is rarely done without people explaining away the texts that do not fit their scenario.

That is predominately done in Cal/Arm discussions by those attempting to show the teachings of Reformed theology are not valid. The Reformed on here in these discussions always back up what they say from the scriptures and I for one have provided alternate interpretations of those "proof texts" that are used universally and exclusively by those defending a free will choice, whether it be those using the word "world" or those saying God desires that all be saved. So far no one has ever addressed this alternate view at all, let alone refuted it. All they do is repeat it or as I said, act like it wasn't given. Those doing this really ought to ask themselves why it is that that is all they are able to do. If they would only do this, and they should be able to if what they are promoting is biblical supported, then conversations would not devolve into one side continuing to ask for it and the other side huffing off after dropping a few contemptuous personal remarks.

No one is a righteous authority. And we all should be eternally Grateful for God's condescension toward us.

The Bible is the only righteous authority and no one has said otherwise or even implied it. But one has to take the entire Bible into consideration when arriving at truth and not bits and pieces of it. One passage cannot contradict another, and if it appears to, the scriptures that are clear on the same subject must be brought to bear on it, in order to resolve the paradox. If you open up a topic, as you did, and yet do not actually engage in a discussion of it, and eventually imply here that there is no such thing as a valid, learning, discussion in which both parties can benefit, because, in essence, "my truth is as good as your truth" and no one can claim to be right----then why open up the discussion at all? Instead, we are discussing this stuff, on my part, hoping to reopen a beneficial and worthwhile conversation of the OP content.

Of course we should be eternally grateful for God's condescension toward us. Does having conversations on the meaning of Scripture mean we don't? Is that the whole of the gospel? Is that why the apostles went to so much effort to establish the foundational doctrines of Christ's church?

 

[Arial]

You lay a false charge at my door. God forbid that I ever talk back to him. Disagreeing with Calvin's interpretation of God's Grace is not talking back to God.

If the doctrines presented in Reformed theology on the subject are true, then you are talking back to God when you tell Him who He is and what and why He would not be the God as presented in the theology. Especially when you use the words that you do, by calling it manipulation, forcing people to love Him, that it would be Him not being love. And you have yet to support that they are not true with anything but your already held beliefs. It is exactly what Paul is dealing with in Romans 9 every time he asks a hypothetical question and answers it with "May it never be!" Which I pointed out in another post and was ignored, never addressed, and instead here we are abandoning the OP altogether to discuss the best way to proceed, with responses that also abandon what I now consider to be the main purpose of the OP---to chastise those who actually want and expect the OP to be discussed.

Sometimes we are so intense about what we believe we cannot hear what someone else is saying. You are always bringing up God's sovereignty which I have always fully acknowledged but some how you do not hear that acknowledgement.

It is you who does not seem to hear what anyone is saying, as you ignore it. I know you have acknowledged God's sovereignty---and I have pointed out that you also at the same time deny it by telling Him what He does with that sovereignty---by giving it over into the hands of men when it comes to salvation. And then come up with all these reasons why He does so without ever showing where they are in the scriptures. They aren't there. If you would address what I say, and provide what I ask, you wouldn't need to devolve into statements such as the above that completely derail your own thread.

You hear me intimate that man's will superceds Gods and yet I do not say that nor do I believe it. Somehow you are hearing meanings in what I say that were never intended by me.

Then tell me what you mean when you say if IG were true then God is a manipulator. That the only way He can be loving is if He gives everyone an equal chance to choose Him, as opposed to that in His grace He actually sovereignly places them in Christ.

We cannot get into the real meat of this until we stop and listen to eachother.

I have been listening. I am waiting for you to listen to me.

Where did you get this from?

Statements you have made.

 

[Mr GLee]

Romans 9 is not a parable, the "us" is still the ones Paul is writing to, both Jew and Gentile Christians, I see no connection in this post to the one it is responding to or to the OP.

Sorry parable can be confusing as they were designed I am still learning how to rightly divide the parables (prophecy) Hopefully I can continue until the last day under the Sun .

The apostles found out when they were not given the understanding of the series of parable,They ttok a vote and decided Jesus was off his rocker, section 13 and they looked for a new Who is the Greatest Teaching Master . many Rabbi at that time

The us is the ones that hear his writing that Paul is moved to write to the Jew and Gentile it was not his own private interptation ,

Saul left that kind of the dying oral tradition of men and got under all things written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura)

 

[Arial]

If one receives the gift of God, they have eternal life

That would actually be correct except that you have used the word received as though it had the meaning "accept." And behind that is a phantom offer of grace to everyone of all time, all equally being able to accept or reject what is given, according to Scripture, instead of what is offered. I say phantom because nothing has been presented that show such a thing exists in the context of God and redemption. You turn the Eph 2 scripture on it head when say the gift of faith is offered and the offering is the gift, and then each person in turn decides that faith they supposedly have, can now be rejected. I have presented this before. It was not refuted but ignored, so I will pose the question again, and hope this time you will show me exactly how it is not logically true.

If God gives a person something, in this case faith, then is it not faith that they have? And if they have it, is it not impossible to then say I reject what I believe?

 

[EarlyActs]

Here he is speaking of Israel. The Children of Promise. God calls his kingdom from the Jews and the Gentiles.

"Us" is from both groups. So is the remnant. A person has to go on to the 4 OT quotes for further detail.

Always distinguish between believing (faith-based)people, and the race-nation.

 

[Arial]

Good grief. I have never seen such a misunderstanding of exegesis. How can we go on when no one can agree on the terms? Yes, it was exegesis whether you believe it or not. I'm done for a while.

The word exegesis does not even have to be used. It is used because exegesis is necessary, in any scriptural debate, and it does have a meaning that goes beyond stating what something means given as an interpretation. It may be correct without going any further, but it does not tell the whole story, if more story is needed. When points are brought up they need to be addressed with support, and that support usually goes beyond the stated opinion. So the word is not the issue, the issue is that what needs to be done to move a conversation forward, even to make it a cogent conversation, and to keep it on track, is not being done except on one side of the debate, and then those things are being ignored and never addressed head on.

 

[Mr GLee]

The word exegesis does not even have to be used. It is used because exegesis is necessary, in any scriptural debate, and it does have a meaning that goes beyond stating what something means given as an interpretation. It may be correct without going any further, but it does not tell the whole story, if more story is needed. When points are brought up they need to be addressed with support, and that support usually goes beyond the stated opinion. So the word is not the issue, the issue is that what needs to be done to move a conversation forward, even to make it a cogent conversation, and to keep it on track, is not being done except on one side of the debate, and then those things are being ignored and never addressed head on.

Biblical Faith would seem to be the most misunderstood word in the world.

Faith as a work of God is the substance or power of God's living word . The law as it is written . . it representing the creative power of faith by which God creates new creatures born from above

Must people reject the idea that God exercises his powerful faith in us to both will and empower us to do it to His glory They say he does not need faith . .he is God .Not understanding what it (faith) is. It is hidden from them revealed by God to his children .

I would think born again Christians have the power of Christs faith that works in us but would never say faith or understanding as it is writen is of us . We have no power to raise our own selves from dead faithless dying mankind .he is the storeroom he gives us little .

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power (faith) may be of God, and not of us.
I would think the problem arises when mankind separate's faith from work. Faith is the power of God or labor of His unsen love that works in us . Previously before given His faith (beliefs) we were reckoned as no faith (power to understand ) not little none.He is the source of faith "let there be" and the testimony of God "was good " .

Faith cannot be separated from the work of Christ the word faith throughout James 2 belongs to God .Not once does it express human faith as dead (Abraham or Rehab) .Again we not saved by dead faith that provides no power

James 2King James Version My brethren, have not the faith of (coming from) our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.(dying mankind)

as a result verse 7

James 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name (power of faith) by the which ye are called?

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone(.powerless)

Every time a person sees the word faith we know it has to do with the unseen power of God that works in us not of us .we have no power (faith)

James 2:18-23 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, (Christs in Abraham ) when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith (Christs) wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(But also the work it produces evidence God spoke Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works,(Christ's) when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Luke 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.. . . . . (The power of God)

 

[Ladodgers6]

It would seem it is at that point you error .On one hand you say you protect the integrity of sola scriptura then you show you do not .and look to the church rather than the one good teaching master Christ our Holy Father. . not seen

I think you are in error in understanding what my point is. I am pointing out that EarlyActs paradigm is a condemned heresy. It was condemned by the early church, Apostles, and Christ himself, I said. I say this because this heresy was condemned because of Scripture. I didn't think I needed to spell this out.

Replacing or adding to the work of the Holy Spirit as if it was the church or apostles that condemn and not God alone. God will not share his glory with dying mankind .

Amen.

In that way Christ the Spirit of God can use or move a unbeliever to preach the gospel just as easily of one that does have faith as it is written (sola scriptura)

God has no needs but satisfies all the needs of His born again children

The apostles as dying mankind are under a curse the appointment to die once. they are as nothin no power from there dying flesh. They preach. Only God does the teaching, forgiving and rebuking and bringing to our minds the previous thing he has taught us .

He warns of of the antichrist false apostle, false prophets that teach oral tradition of dying mankind .(antichrists)

We receive no reward from men dead in there trespass and sin.

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

Please do not confuse and understand it's not deeds that save but creeds, God's Word; His Promise; His Oath; His Covenant!

 

[Mr GLee]

I think you are in error in understanding what my point is. I am pointing out that EarlyActs paradigm is a condemned heresy. It was condemned by the early church, Apostles, and Christ himself, I said. I say this because this heresy was condemned because of Scripture. I didn't think I needed to spell this out.

Thanks

You do need to define the word "apostle" words assigned by the author have meaning we are warned of those who commit plagiarism (spiritual) we know who is behind it . . the dark one ( Deuteronomy 4:2)

The apostles "dying mankind" have no authority or power of their own.

Again you are including the church and the apostles and Christ lastly

In one sense I am surprised they did include the Holy Father, Christ not seen last as least But again they simply must attribute the power to believe God to the Pope as if he was our Holy Father in heaven.

It's easy to see you follow after a daysman spoken of in Job 9:33 as if God was dying mankind . "daysman" infalible fleshly interpreter set between our Holy Father not seen and dying mankind seen. . . . with approval of both . Falsely hoping for some unknown reason Eternal God is a temporal dying man.

Job 9:32-33 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.
Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.

It's like the Catholic design found in their book of the law (CCC) of the oral traditions as fathers (dying mankind) Sacred Oral traditions of the church (dying mankind) first . . . and then Sacred Tradition of God (sola scriptura) on the back burner

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring,

Devine dead men .

Including the apostle sent messengers. not Highly Venerable Ones that lord it over the understanding of the non-venerable pew warmers faith or show time watchers as if the the messenger sent had something to do with God working in dying mankind to both hear his will and empower mankind to perform it

Early church (doctrine of the father of lies ) is a doctrine of the wrong kind of fathers (two kinds)

Fathers, called patron saint gods. . . dying mankind that looks to elevate (venerate) the dying flesh of the sent messengers (apostles) sent with the gospel .above all thing writen in the law and the prophets .

Our Holy Father as it is written has given us his understanding of those who elevate or puff up the apostles (dying mankind) above all that is writen in the law and prophets (sola scriptura) using themself in that parable or figure to teach us not to worship dying flesh and blood .Lifeless spiritless blood poured out returns to the dust or field of Clay. we will receive a body that will never die

1 Corinthian 4: 6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Abel was the first apostle sent messenger as a member of the church (bride) As a prophet of God sent him to preach the Gospel. . first listed martyr. You simply have another foundation other than sola scriptura)

First things first

Define the word apostles and its usage using the Bible . Not the CCC the Catholic bible .(source of dying faith )

 

[EarlyActs]

To LADodger:
I am pointing out that EarlyActs paradigm is a condemned heresy
What's that paradigm?

 

[Josheb]

Good points. sons of God, Christians are called Israel............... The veil was rent the walls fell down Both male an female prophets in a new kingdom of priests No more Jewish males only club.

I would think like all parables they hide the spiritual understanding............. You could say to both to plant the incorruptible seed and water the seed with the living water of the gospel, .....Matthew 21:18-20

Yes, but the salient points have to do with exegesis. This op lacks it.

Everyone here should remember that the unstated intent is to question Calvinism, and more specifically Calvinist soteriology. Not only is the premise of "an alternative exegesis" faulty because the mere existence of an alternative does nothing to prove or disprove anything. Any exegesis presented must be so thorough that it precludes dissent..... and that would also preclude the premise of an alternative. At best this is lazy intellectualism, and the sophistry contained in the premise of an alternative exegesis is realized in the last half of the opening post. If I did not genuinely believe the effort done in earnest I'd think the opening post to be trolling.

Were I to ask anyone here to list a half-dozen basic precepts of exegesis I have no doubt everyone here would do so, and do so as soon as the read the request. Most would do so simply to build consensus and establish common measures. I few would do so feeling inconvenienced, but they would prove their ability anyway.

• First, read the text exactly as written.
• Identify the "genre," or type of literature you're reading (is it history, prophecy, gospel, epistle, etc.).
• NEVER read just one verse (or two) in neglect of its surrounding text.
• Read the word literally, with their normal meaning in ordinary everyday usage, unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text indicating a reason to do otherwise.
• Identify the author, his audience, his original intent, and how the original readers would have understood the text when received.
• Identify the contexts provided by the text itself other than the author and his original audience. Derive the meaning from the inherent contexts.
• The explicit is of greater significance that the implicit, the literal over the figurative, and clear over the unclear.
• Scripture interprets scripture.
• The OT informs the NT, and the NT explains the OT.
• Work outward from the individual text through the larger narrative, the book as a whole and the genre as a whole and Scripture as a whole.
• Scripture never contradicts itself so if two verses appear to contradict one another the problem is with the reader, not the text.
• Submit doctrine and personal experience to scripture, not the other way around.

It took me two minutes and 14 seconds to type those 12 points off the top of my head. That is twice as many as I requested and four times as much as I would have allowed. Someone claiming to provide and exegesis questioning a theology that has withstood rigorous examination 500 years (three times that if we go back to Augustine) should be able to do the same. Yes? Am I asking too much?

Criticisms, avoidance, and obfuscating responses "I don't have to answer you're questions," "You don't get to tell me what to do," or "You first," do not evidence goodwill - especially not from the person who started the entire conversation and specifically framed it within the auspices of exegesis.

Cheese, lighten up, Josh. I don't know whether anyone noticed but this op insinuates Calvinists need to have their minds changed by God (along with the red herring believing or not believing Calvinism is not salvific).

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.

And the op contains five summarized bullet points it calls an exegesis before spending three times that amount on "some counterpoints to the Calvinistic interpretations." Five bullet points while saying, "It's important to recognize that the interpretations of Romans 9 can be complex." Does anyone here find the five summarized bullet points provided "complex"?

This op is sophistry.

...there are various perspectives within Christianity. Different theological traditions may emphasize different aspects of the text, leading to diverse interpretations...

Theological traditions may to "diverse interpretations," but neither leads to exegesis. That is the cart before the horse. Both interpretation and "traditions" - as well as doctrine - are supposed to be based on exegesis and the sounder the exegesis the less diversity. I suspect the op has confused exegesis with hermeneutics.

...leading to diverse interpretations of God's sovereignty, election, and human responsibility but if Christ is all in all,

None of which is covered in this op's "exegesis."

... but if Christ is all in all, I need to reflect his meekness and kindness in all of my discourse.

You are trying too hard, I have no problem with the way John Calvin's views on salvation. If you can slow down and relax a bit we can have a good conversation.

You have not yet grasped what I am arguing.

I am finding it difficult to converse with you. You seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time critiquing and little time discussing function.

You lay a false charge at my door. God forbid that I ever talk back to him...... Somehow you are hearing meanings in what I say that were never intended by me...

You are simply one who dodges the issues by trying to appear learned, but it is quite a transparent effort. If you ever want to get serious let me know.

I have no more time to devote to your insecurities. Good luck.

Good grief. I have never seen such a misunderstanding of exegesis. How can we go on when no one can agree on the terms? Yes, it was exegesis whether you believe it or not. I'm done for a while.

Does any of that sound "meek" to you?

See any exegesis in any of that?

No, it is all nonsense, but I'm going to get ragged on because I asked him to show up for his own op and provide an actual exegesis. By the looks of Posts 40-55 it looks like Elvis has left the building and we're never going to get an actual exegesis of Romans 9:6-29.

 

[EarlyActs]

The "us" is the congregation he is writing to and who read the letter. Is He calling a kingdom or is He calling individuals into the kingdom? The kingdom already exists and has no need of being called.

I think that by that point in his stream he means a 3rd group which has members of each race because of faith. Algebraically you might write:

Jf + Gf = "us", where Jf = Jews with faith and Gf = Gentiles with faith.
Thus, he is not talking about Jf or Gf by themselves nor Jd nor Gd (d = disbelief) by themselves, but about f v d. (Believers vs unbelievers). By ch 11, he will consciously say that Jf is a remnant that has always been there, no matter how small, and will be in the future, too, but 'all Israel' needs to be seen as all fs, not Jfs and not Js as a race-nation. Vs 32 calls for it to be all with faith.

 

[Josheb]

I think that by that point in his stream he means a 3rd group which has members of each race because of faith. Algebraically you might write:

Jf + Gf = "us", where Jf = Jews with faith and Gf = Gentiles with faith.
Thus, he is not talking about Jf or Gf by themselves nor Jd nor Gd (d = disbelief) by themselves, but about f v d. (Believers vs unbelievers). By ch 11, he will consciously say that Jf is a remnant that has always been there, no matter how small, and will be in the future, too, but 'all Israel' needs to be seen as all fs, not Jfs and not Js as a race-nation. Vs 32 calls for it to be all with faith.

The "us" is defined or identified at the beginning of the epistle. "Paul, a bondservant of Christ Jesus...." is writing to,

Romans 1:7
...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.


Yes, those who believe in the name of Jesus, those with faith (whether Jew or Gentile), are beloved of God, saints and have God as their Father and Jesus Christ as their Lord. If we read "saints in Rome," where the "we" and "us" occur we here in the 21st century will avoid the problem of misidentification.

Only after the text is correctly understood to we living in this century apply the text to ourselves. We do read ourselves into the letter as if the letter was written directly to use, as if we live in first century Rome and the letter was written directly to us. The contents of the letter apply to us, but it was not written to us.


Just saying.


And..... by extension..... this is important in the Arm v Cal debate for several reasons. One is because identifying the writer and his original audience is one of the first steps in exegesis. Second, the synergist side of the debate often fails to do the identification and thereby ends up applying to non-believers things written to and about noon-believers. Third, the ego-centric reading neglects what's stated in favor of inferences not supported by the text.

Most importantly, however, a sound soteriology covers all the bases. A sound soteriology addresses the modern atheist and does not conflate the modern atheist with a covenant people (whether that covenant be grace or Law). There are very few atheists in the Bible and very, very, very little is written about them.

Psalm 10:4
In his pride the wicked man does not seek Him; in all his schemes there is no God.

Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and vile in their ways; there is no one who does good.


There is NOTHING in Romans 9 about them. It does not matter whether the reader of Romans 9 is Cal or Arm. Both would be mistaken to read any atheist into the text OR garner a soteriology applicable to the atheist from that text.

Just saying.