[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

I have been reading Piper along with you, and see presupposition, rather than "assumptions."

Are there any specifics you can point out that you would care to discuss?

Nang

The most obvious to me was in the first chapter, where Piper asserts (using parentheses, no less) that Paul has the entire church in mind when speaking of "escatological Israel" in Romans 9:1-23.

This is not only an unsupported assertion, it's a false assumption based upon Calvinist systematic theology.

Paul's only focus in Romans 9:1-23 are actual Jews, those born of Israel. He does divide them into two groups, but his focus is on why God is not unjust when Israel "of the flesh" does not come to recognize their messiah, and thus become the pot prepared for wrath.

So, whether we call them assumptions or presuppositions, they have no place when doing exegesis. Doing so results in poor theological conclusions. And that is the case, here.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

The most obvious to me was in the first chapter, where Piper asserts (using parentheses, no less) that Paul has the entire church in mind when speaking of "escatological Israel" in Romans 9:1-23.

This is not only an unsupported assertion, it's a false assumption based upon Calvinist systematic theology.

Paul's only focus in Romans 9:1-23 are actual Jews, those born of Israel. He does divide them into two groups, but his focus is on why God is not unjust when Israel "of the flesh" does not come to recognize their messiah, and thus become the pot prepared for wrath.

So, whether we call them assumptions or presuppositions, they have no place when doing exegesis. Doing so results in poor theological conclusions. And that is the case, here.

This instance reveals Piper's presupposition that God is a covenant God and that national Israel was privileged as being the covenant people of God (as is all the church.) God's Word (covenants) never fall for God is righteous in all His sovereign dealings with men.

Any exegete will approach scripture with a presupposition; the most basic being a belief in the existence of God, as I would suppose even you manifest when you exegete any portion of the bible.

Of course, all presupposition must be made obvious and proven to accord with all the scriptures examined as the exegesis develops. And there can be more than one presupposition explained: e.g. Piper early manifests the covenant privileges of national Israel as well as defending the righteousness of God (another Piper presupposition) made known in His sovereign dealings with man.

Do you deny presuppositionalism altogether?

Nang

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

This instance reveals Piper's presupposition that God is a covenant God and that national Israel was privileged as being the covenant people of God (as is all the church.) God's Word (covenants) never fall for God is righteous in all His sovereign dealings with men.

Any exegete will approach scripture with a presupposition; the most basic being a belief in the existence of God, as I would suppose even you manifest when you exegete any portion of the bible.

Of course, all presupposition must be made obvious and proven to accord with all the scriptures examined as the exegesis develops. And there can be more than one presupposition explained: e.g. Piper early manifests the covenant privileges of national Israel as well as defending the righteousness of God (another Piper presupposition) made known in His sovereign dealings with man.

Do you deny presuppositionalism altogether?

Nang

Presuppositionalism is fine until the bible disagrees with your presupposition as is the case, here.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Presuppositionalism is fine until the bible disagrees with your presupposition as is the case, here.

Piper presupposes God's Word (covenants) do not fail. How is that not well exegeted from Romans 9:6 by Piper?

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

Piper presupposes God's Word (covenants) do not fail. How is that not well exegeted from Romans 9:6 by Piper?

No. Piper presupposes that when Paul speaks of the idea "escatological Israel" (as distinguished from the nation of Israel as children of the promise) Paul means "... the church, without regard to ethnic origins." (p8) And later on (p9) he says that this same group is (= Church).

This presupposition, if it is a presupposition, is clearly false and not supported by the text, as Paul is lamenting the fate of his national kinsman, and saying that the promise to Israel is kept by those who are national Israel, but also children of the promise. And the logic is fairly simple to follow: You can't fulfill a promise for those whom a promise was not made.

And this is evident in the first few verses. The Gentiles are (by virtue of exclusive inclusion) not the recipients of the promises. Only national Israel is. Thus, Paul cannot have the Church in mind, as the Church is not the ones to whom the promises were made.

Thus, this assumption and imposition on the text is clearly false, and I suspect much of his theology with respect to the Church and Romans 9-11 is skewed by this fairly fundamental error.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

No. Piper presupposes that when Paul speaks of the idea "escatological Israel" (as distinguished from the nation of Israel as children of the promise) Paul means "... the church, without regard to ethnic origins." (p8) And later on (p9) he says that this same group is (= Church).

This presupposition, if it is a presupposition, is clearly false and not supported by the text, as Paul is lamenting the fate of his national kinsman, and saying that the promise to Israel is kept by those who are national Israel, but also children of the promise. And the logic is fairly simple to follow: You can't fulfill a promise for those whom a promise was not made.

I agree with what I emphasized here. What is key to our differences, is who exactly are the "children of promise." And what is the specific covenant promise?

To whom do you believe, within Israel, covenant promises were not made?

National Israel received promise of land, and a remnant within the nation also received the Abrahamic heavenly promises.

And this is evident in the first few verses. The Gentiles are (by virtue of exclusive inclusion) not the recipients of the promises. Only national Israel is.

Promises of land and privilege (that Piper carefully covered).

But persons prior to national Israel received the heavenly promises; namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which predated deliverance of the Hebrews. And there are a small number of other Gentiles recorded in the scriptures who received the heavenly promises, also. So you cannot say NO Gentiles received covenant promises from God in the O.T.

And it is the remnant of Jews within the nation of Israel and all the godly lineages named in the bible prior to the existance of national Israel, that make up the invisible church . . . manifested as all persons of faith in the promises fulfilled by Jesus Christ in these latter days.

Thus, Paul cannot have the Church in mind, as the Church is not the ones to whom the promises were made.

Well, this is your presupposition.

Would you like to exegete Romans 9:6 and explain how "not all Israel, is Israel?"

Thus, this assumption and imposition on the text is clearly false, and I suspect much of his theology with respect to the Church and Romans 9-11 is skewed by this fairly fundamental error.

Michael, accusing Piper of being false does not give answer to his exegesis. It is simply your opinion.

And until you can match efforts with your own thorough exegesis of the same passage, proving your presupposition that God only made covenant with national Israel but not with various non-Jew individuals (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc.) throughout all of history (Hebrews Chapter 11), you will not be taken seriously as a theologian, but considered a commentator, only.

How do you define the "church?"

Do you believe the entire nation of Israel will receive the Abrahamic Covenant promises of a heavenly city?

Do you see any differences (or comparisons) between the various covenants? Or do you recognize the covenants as revealing the nature of God, at all?

Nang

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

I agree with what I emphasized here. What is key to our differences, is who exactly are the "children of promise." And what is the specific covenant promise?

To whom do you believe, within Israel, covenant promises were not made?

Never said that weren't made to anyone in Old Covenant Israel. Indeed, I cited Paul when he states that they WERE given to all of Old Covenant Israel.

National Israel received promise of land, and a remnant within the nation also received the Abrahamic heavenly promises.



Promises of land and privilege (that Piper carefully covered).

No real disagreement with this specific point.

But persons prior to national Israel received the heavenly promises; namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which predated deliverance of the Hebrews.

The promise of land was given to Abraham AND Isaac AND Jacob, too.

And there are a small number of other Gentiles recorded in the scriptures who received the heavenly promises, also. So you cannot say NO Gentiles received covenant promises from God in the O.T.

I never said that "NO Gentiles received covenant promises." However, all of these people were proselytes to Judaism. They joined the Old Covenant. (There is, however, a distinction between receiving the benefits of a promise and the promise being given.)

And it is the remnant of Jews within the nation of Israel and all the godly lineages named in the bible prior to the existance of national Israel, that make up the invisible church . . . manifested as all persons of faith in the promises fulfilled by Jesus Christ in these latter days.

Well, OK, but that isn't who Paul is talking about in Romans 9.

Well, this is your presupposition.

Would you like to exegete Romans 9:6 and explain how "not all Israel, is Israel?"

It isn't really even that hard:

9 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Paul tells us who he is speaking of. The bolded section indicates that Paul is talking about those born as Jews into the Old Covenant that were living in his time. His grief isn't for someone who lived in 1000 BC, but for those Jews who saw their Messiah and rejected him, and it appeared that they would never accept him.

And, just to confirm that this is the group we're talking about, only national Israel were given the law and the temple services. Plus, Jesus was Jewish. Thus according to the flesh, Christ came from the Jewish people.

So, this is the pool of people Paul is talking about, and the ones specifically who received the promises Paul is speaking of (see v4). So, in no sense is Paul referring to anyone who is not specifically under the Old Covenant law, or anyone who isn't racially Jewish.

So, Paul continues in this context:

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed.

Key, here: To whom would the word of God failed? Specifically, as we just saw, to racial Jews, those under the Old Covenant, in this generation.

For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

And, in that context, Paul makes a distinction within this group of people, racial Jews under the Old Covenant in this generation.

7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

[/indent]
Children of the promise. What promise? The one given to those in verse 4.

So, this subset of Jews, that are called children of the promise, those who believed, are designated as such.

The problem with Piper's position is that he reads verses 1 through 5, and then proceeds to ignore the context that they create in verse 6, and (without any foundation at all) asserts that Paul has the Church in mind. That's so obviously false, I cannot explain it well for Piper's position. Paul has his kinsman in the nation of Israel in mind, an no one else. Verses 1-5 make that painfully obvious.

Michael, accusing Piper of being false does not give answer to his exegesis. It is simply your opinion.

Which is fine, but Piper doesn't give any basis for his claim that Paul has the Church in mind when talking about eschatological Israel. He just assumes it. So any exegesis will be better. I was simply pointing out that Piper assumes this is the case without foundation on pp8 and 9.

And until you can match efforts with your own thorough exegesis of the same passage, proving your presupposition that God only made covenant with national Israel but not with various non-Jew individuals (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc.) throughout all of history (Hebrews Chapter 11), you will not be taken seriously as a theologian, but considered a commentator, only.

Done.

How do you define the "church?"

Those who have come into the New Covenant.

Do you believe the entire nation of Israel will receive the Abrahamic Covenant promises of a heavenly city?

Ah, here is your error. Paul isn't talking about those who received the benefits of the promises, but rather those to whom they were given. And Paul is very clear that the promises were given to ethnic Israel, making the distinct from everyone else in vv1-5.

Do you see any differences (or comparisons) between the various covenants? Or do you recognize the covenants as revealing the nature of God, at all?

Doesn't really matter, here. The point is that whatever promises (and law and temple services) Paul is talking about were specifically given to the nation of Israel. No other nation, no other people group, were given the Old Covenant law nor were they given the temple services, and thus they were not given the promises, either.

Now, gentiles did come to enjoy the benefits of the promises of the New Covenant, but :

25 As He says also in Hosea,

“ I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’

And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”

26 “ And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’

There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

Note that Paul goes on to make it clear that he is not talking about Gentiles in the previous section, because the joined and received that which they were not promised.

So, all those who believed before Christ? They weren't given those promises, even though they received the benefit from them.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

I cited Paul when he states that they WERE given to all of Old Covenant Israel. . .

The promise of land was given to Abraham AND Isaac AND Jacob, too.

Agreed.

But since this covenant was fulfilled nationally, would this be the only covenant Paul refers to according to God's faithfulness and righteousness?

I never said that "NO Gentiles received covenant promises." However, all of these people were proselytes to Judaism. They joined the Old Covenant. (There is, however, a distinction between receiving the benefits of a promise and the promise being given.)

Agreed.

But it seems you refer to only the land promises, here. Correct?

It is clear non-Jews received the heavenly promises prior to the deliverance of the nation of Israel who received the covenants of land and Law .

but that isn't who Paul is talking about in Romans 9.

But that is the point I am trying to make. Paul is speaking about both the nation of Israel, and the remnant of the "church" that has been saved through faith from the beginning of time.

Old Covenant = Law and land promises
New Covenant = Messiah and heavenly kingdom

9 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Paul tells us who he is speaking of. The bolded section indicates that Paul is talking about those born as Jews into the Old Covenant that were living in his time. His grief isn't for someone who lived in 1000 BC, but for those Jews who saw their Messiah and rejected him, and it appeared that they would never accept him.

O.K. Agreed

And, just to confirm that this is the group we're talking about, only national Israel were given the law and the temple services. Plus, Jesus was Jewish. Thus according to the flesh, Christ came from the Jewish people.

So, this is the pool of people Paul is talking about, and the ones specifically who received the promises Paul is speaking of (see v4). So, in no sense is Paul referring to anyone who is not specifically under the Old Covenant law, or anyone who isn't racially Jewish.

So, Paul continues in this context:

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed.

Key, here: To whom would the word of God failed? Specifically, as we just saw, to racial Jews, those under the Old Covenant, in this generation.

With you so far, but I see Paul by his question, make a deliberate shift in Romans 9:6, away from speaking of national Israel alone. Away from referring to the earthly covenant promises, by his turning to the subject of Abraham and the specific "children of promise" . . . naming Isaac as the example.

From vs 6 through Chapter 11, I believe Paul is teaching about the faithful, elect (church) of Jesus Christ. Which has always consisted of a small remnant of peoples called to faith out of all the nations. Beginning with the lineage of Seth to Noah, through the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, culminating with a greater remnant of N.T. saints who would be called out globally from all the nations of the world according to the New Covenant.

(The New Covenant of Grace was early established in Genesis 3:15 as antithetical to the old Covenant of Works and Law)

For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

And, in that context, Paul makes a distinction within this group of people, racial Jews under the Old Covenant in this generation.

I believe the rest of Paul's teaching expands from the literal and earthly nation, to a definition of God's elect remnant as a spiritual people: "the children of the promise are counted as the seed." 9:8

Paul is teaching individuals being given the new covenant of heavenly promises, that come from "Israel" according to "election". 9:11 ("Israel" is another name for Jesus Christ. See Matthew 2:14-15 fulfilling the prophecy of Hosea 11:1)

The spiritual "Israel" is the Elect Son of God Himself. Isaiah 42:1-4

Paul is teaching Election from Romans 9:6 forward.

Jesus Christ is God's Elect.
Jesus Christ is named "Israel."
Jesus Christ is the promised Seed.
Jesus Christ produces spiritual seed, called His "elect church."

All of this accords with Paul's earlier teaching in Romans 4:1-5:11

7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

[/indent]
Children of the promise. What promise? The one given to those in verse 4.

I disagree. I believe Paul refers in Romans 9:7 to the new covenant promise made to Abraham and Isaac, of a heavenly kingdom, of which all Christ's faithful seed enjoy a heavenly citizenship. (Ephesians 2:19-20, Philippians 3:20, Hebrews 11:10-19)

So, this subset of Jews, that are called children of the promise, those who believed, are designated as such.

Yes, but you fail to distinguish what specific covenant this elect remnant; these children of promise, have and do believe.

The problem with Piper's position is that he reads verses 1 through 5, and then proceeds to ignore the context that they create in verse 6, and (without any foundation at all) asserts that Paul has the Church in mind. That's so obviously false, I cannot explain it well for Piper's position. Paul has his kinsman in the nation of Israel in mind, an no one else. Verses 1-5 make that painfully obvious.

I do not believe this is a false view, it is just different than your (earthly, literal) view, and encompasses more than just the old covenants of land and Law known by national Israel at large.

Paul is expanding and including the Abrahamic Covenant in this revelation as producing an elect people saved by grace through faith in the Elect Son, Jesus Christ.

But thanks for an exegesis on your part, instead of just opinion and/or commentary. I appreciate it for it gives us more basis to have discussion on this important passage of Holy Scripture.

Nang

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

Agreed.

But it seems you refer to only the land promises, here. Correct?

False. Paul refers to the giving of the law and the temple services. That is the Old Covenant.

It is clear non-Jews received the heavenly promises prior to the deliverance of the nation of Israel who received the covenants of land and Law .

Ah, but they received what they were not promised in the law and the temple services. This is the point. It isn't about who receives the benefits, but rather to whom they were made.

But that is the point I am trying to make. Paul is speaking about both the nation of Israel, and the remnant of the "church" that has been saved through faith from the beginning of time.

False. Unless you can show that any nation other than the nation of Israel received the law and the temple services, this is incorrect.

What nation received the law and the temple services besides Israel?

Old Covenant = Law and land promises
New Covenant = Messiah and heavenly kingdom

Not horribly relevant, here, since Paul doesn't actually mention the new covenant in 9:1-6

With you so far, but I see Paul by his question, make a deliberate shift in Romans 9:6, away from speaking of national Israel alone. Away from referring to the earthly covenant promises, by his turning to the subject of Abraham and the specific "children of promise" . . . naming Isaac as the example.

False. Since no one outside of the nation of Israel received the law and the temple services, Paul cannot be talking about anyone else. This is specifically about whether God is justified in not saving all of those who received the law, the temple services, and the promises (v4). Since no one outside of the nation of Israel received the law, the temple services and the promises, Paul cannot have anyone outside of the nation of Israel in mind.

This is where you impose theology on the text (as does Piper.) The relevance of having specifically been the one to whom promises were made (along with the law and the temple services) is the basis for the potential accusation against God of being unjust.

Had Christ died, and the nation of Israel repented and come to believe in Him afterwards, and the gospel never went out to the rest of the world, this accusation would not exist.

From vs 6 through Chapter 11, I believe Paul is teaching about the faithful, elect (church) of Jesus Christ.

As shown, simple false.

Which has always consisted of a small remnant of peoples called to faith out of all the nations. Beginning with the lineage of Seth to Noah, through the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, culminating with a greater remnant of N.T. saints who would be called out globally from all the nations of the world according to the New Covenant.

Ah, but Paul is talking about those who received the law and the temple services. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Seth, Noah, and any others who were not part of the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant are not in view, because they have no claim to ask why they did not receive promises that were only made to the nation of Israel.

(The New Covenant of Grace was early established in Genesis 3:15 as antithetical to the old Covenant of Works and Law)

This isn't technically true. There is no covenant in Genesis 3. There is a general promise to redeem, yes. But this isn't what Paul is referring to. The New Covenant is promised in Jeremiah 31:34 (I think that's the verse), and is given specifically to the nation of Israel, and given in the context of the law and the temple services, as Paul talks about in verse 4.

And Paul confirms this in Romans 9:24, when he pretty clearly states that those to whom the promise of this covenant was not made have come to participate in it anyway.

Which is the difference. Had the gospel not gone out to the world and Israel repented and believed after Christ died, there would be no question of justification of the promises that came with the law and the temple services.

I believe the rest of Paul's teaching expands from the literal and earthly nation, to a definition of God's elect remnant as a spiritual people: "the children of the promise are counted as the seed." 9:8

You can believe what you want, but the text says otherwise. Again, the error of ignoring Paul's words in vv1-5 which set up the entire question of the justification of God is the foundation of your error.

Paul is teaching individuals being given the new covenant of heavenly promises, that come from "Israel" according to "election". 9:11 ("Israel" is another name for Jesus Christ. See Matthew 2:14-15 fulfilling the prophecy of Hosea 11:1)

False. Paul is both lamenting that Israel as a nation has not yet come to believe, and showing that God is justified in not bringing this about. This has nothing to do with election.

Furthermore "Israel" is not another name for Jesus Christ. That's just silly. Israel rejected Christ. They crucified Him. Matthew's point in much of the Old Testament that he quotes is that Jesus is walking the same path as Israel, but isn't grumbling or breaking covenant but rather living a perfect life.

And how Matthew deals with this has nothing to do with what Paul writes in Romans 9.

The spiritual "Israel" is the Elect Son of God Himself. Isaiah 42:1-4

You'll have to provide some exegesis to show how Isaiah 42:1-4 has anything to do with Romans 9.

Paul is teaching Election from Romans 9:6 forward.

Again, false. Even the title of Dr. Piper's book disagrees with you. This is about the question of God's justification with respect to Israels' rejection of Christ in spite of being God's people who received the law,the temple services, and the promises.

Jesus Christ is God's Elect.
Jesus Christ is named "Israel."
Jesus Christ is the promised Seed.
Jesus Christ produces spiritual seed, called His "elect church."

Which has nothing to do with Romans 9.

All of this accords with Paul's earlier teaching in Romans 4:1-5:11

But has nothing to do with Romans 9.

I disagree. I believe Paul refers in Romans 9:7 to the new covenant promise made to Abraham and Isaac, of a heavenly kingdom, of which all Christ's faithful seed enjoy a heavenly citizenship. (Ephesians 2:19-20, Philippians 3:20, Hebrews 11:10-19)

Again, this doesn't really matter, as Paul is clearly only talking about Jews, from the context of Romans 9:1-5, and whether God is justified in rejecting Israel, who received the law and the temple services.

Yes, but you fail to distinguish what specific covenant this elect remnant; these children of promise, have and do believe.

Actually, it is you who fail to understand what Paul is talking about in Romans 9 (and 10 and 11), and you fail in that you impose your theology on text.

I do not believe this is a false view, it is just different than your (earthly, literal) view, and encompasses more than just the old covenants of land and Law known by national Israel at large.

Then you are clearly a Calvinist who rejects what the bible says in preference to your theology.

Paul is expanding and including the Abrahamic Covenant in this revelation as producing an elect people saved by grace through faith in the Elect Son, Jesus Christ.

Again, this is clearly false, as the discussion at hand is whether God is justified in rejecting the nation of Israel, who received the law and the temple services by saving only a remnant.

But thanks for an exegesis on your part, instead of just opinion and/or commentary. I appreciate it for it gives us more basis to have discussion on this important passage of Holy Scripture.

Well, when you're ready to get rid of the Calvinist colored glasses and let the bible inform you, let me know.

[themuzicman]

This is the list of verses that the Canons of Dort cite in the first head, including the so called rejection of erros:

(Mat 11:21)
(Mat 11:25-26)
(Mat 13:11)
(Matt 20:15)
(Matt 24:24)
(Luke 10:20)
(John 15:16)
(Acts 13:48)
(Acts 15:18 A.V.)
(Acts 20:27; Rom 11:33f; 12:3; Heb 6:17f).
(Rom 3:19)
(Rom 3:23)
(Rom 6:23)
(Rom 8:30)
(Rom 8:33)
(Rom 9:11-13)
(Rom 9:18).
(Rom 9:20)
(Rom 10:14-15)
(Rom 11:6)
(Rom 11:33-36).
(Eph 1)
(Eph 1:4, 5; 2:10)
(Eph 1:4)
(Eph 1:4-6)
(Eph 1:11)
(Eph 2:8).
(Phil 1:29)
(1 John 4:9, John 3:16)
(1 John 4:10)


Notice that the majority of them cite just one or two verses, and if you go to the Canons themselves, notice how they are used.

For example:

To those who murmur at the free grace of election and the just severity of reprobation we answer with the apostle "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Rom 9:20)

Except that Paul isn't answering someone who murmurs at the free grace of election. He is answering the hypothetical Jew who observes the law, and then finds he has been prepared for wrath.

Unfortunately, this is typical Calvinist "theology", wanting to arrive at a particular conclusion, and then picking out verses that they think say those things, rather than letting Scripture inform their theology properly.

[ttruscott]

Originally Posted by Nang

Ted,

Your posts are messy products of Pelagian, Arminian, Open Theist, and various speculative errors which are all off-topic to this particular thread.

I would have to write a book to counter your wrong views, but I will simply reply by recommending you do some reading of Gordon H. Clark before you contradict his views again.

Nang

Nang, are you a Catholic because you believe in the trinity?
Are you a JW because you believe Jesus died for you?
Are you a Mormon because you believe in the pre-existance of Christ?
Are you a Gnostic because you believe that Jesus was the word?

http://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism

1. Pelagian - views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will.

Pre-Conception Existence Theology claims unequivocably that humanity is made of up of totally reprobate, non-elect and sinful totally depraved (unable to save themselves) elect due to their true free will fall into sin. I deny the imputation of Adam's sin but claim we all have our own original pre-birth sin that condemns us. Without substitutionary attonement by Christ there is no attonement at all.

Pelagianism simultaneously viewing man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will, is a completely wrong concept and as a spirit created in GOD's image it is flawed...PCE teaches specifically that we were not morally good nor bad (nor could we be and keep our free will) and that part of being in GOD's image was to possess the real ability to make true free will decisions (unlike animals for instance), but that we only have free will in the spirit world and not on earth.

http://www.theopedia.com/Arminianism

2. Arminian theology: Universal prevenient grace: This grace purportedly restores man's free will which was impaired by the effects of original sin and enables him to choose or refuse the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ. Some would say that freedom of will is man's natural state, not a spiritual gift — and thus free will was not lost in the Fall, but cannot be exercised toward good apart from the grace of God. In either case, God's universal prevenient grace works upon all alike to influence them for good, but only those who freely choose to cooperate with grace through faith and repentance are given new spiritual power to make effectual the good they otherwise impotently intend.

PCE denies that any grace restore our free will which was made empty when GOD proved HIS divinity and power by the creation of the physical universe. I deny their interpretation of original sin since they mean Adamic inherited sin, which I detest. We do not choose salvation by free will, we receive salvation as a gift.

Conditional election: This point holds that man is the final arbiter of his election, and that God elects him on the basis of foreseen faith which is exercised by libertarian free will, thus making man ultimately decisive.

Little better: Close but no prize. GOD offered as a free gift election to HIS church to any who made the true free will choice to accept HIS purpose for their creation. When some accepted HIS will by their true free will choice, ie by faith without proof, He made them HIS elect to keep HIS promise.

Our election was not before our creation due to foreknowledge but a response to our faith in HIM to keep HIS promise after that faith was manifest.

Unlimited (or universal) atonement Christ's death was suffered on behalf of all men and benefits all men alike. God then elects for salvation those whom he foresees will believe in Christ of their own free will.

PCE is completely dedicated to a limited atonement, never offered to those who put themselves outside of HIS will, love grace and outside of election for eternity, becoming the damned, by their own true free will choice by faith without proof to reject HIS will.

Resistible grace: This point holds that God never overcomes the resistance of man to His saving grace.

Grace is the word that to PCE means He does overcome the resistance of HIS sinful elect to HIS call to repentance and salvation because they are totally depraved, unable to save themselves, but under HIS elective promise of the gospel salvation.

Uncertainty of perseverance: Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to enable them to persevere in the faith. However, it may be possible for a believer to fall from grace.

Grace to PCE is the outcome of HIS promise of election. If HIS grace failed HIS election would also fail so this idea about grace being liable to failure is anathema.

Libertarian free will: A key tenet of Arminianism is libertarian free will. This means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice.

This I definition accept but I deny that it is available to anyone here on earth, by grace or any magical means. The only way we can be free of the determination or constraints of human nature is to have our true free will decisions before we have a determining or constraining human nature, ie in the spirit world before the creation of the physical universe. So I reject it.

Equal, impartial, and undifferentiated love: Arminianism emphasizes God's equal, impartial, and undifferentiated love for all individuals and denies that God has any sort of electing,

My objections to this false idea must be clear by now...

The universal call of salvation: Arminians hold that God calls all people to Himself through Christ, whether or not this call is effectual depends upon the individuals libertarian free will.

Fails on 3counts: 1. PCE teaches GOD only calls the sinful elect 2. HIS call is completely effectual 3. no one on earth has free will.

3. Open theism - also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

PCE is the belief that God, before the creation of the physical universe, did not exercise meticulous control of the spirits created in HIS image but left it "open" for these spirits to make significant choices (free will) that impacted their relationships with God and others.

A corollary of this is that God had not then predetermined the future, but when some of HIS elect fell into sin, He created earth with perfectly programmed lives to bring HIS sinful elect back to their first true free will decision to accept HIS will for them.

PCE further believe that this would imply that God did not know the outcome of their true free will decisions before they were made but that the future of HIS sinful elect on earth is exhaustively known.

PCE affirms that God is omniscient about everything HE decreed to happen or be made, but teaches that God did not decree the outcome of our true free will choices, so they were not known except as possibilities.

Gee, just because I use some of the same words as these theologies just as you do, does not mean I am in agreement with them any more than you are.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on these (some of them new to me) ideologies. But thoughtful clarification has always worked better for me better than knee jerk reactions.

Peace, Ted