Understanding Islam 2 - Page 6

One Zero Seven · (#126 (**permalink**))

Salaam (Peace) to all.

LPA,

The only inconsistency in your proposal is that Jesus never once claimed to be "God", nor did he ever ask anyone to WORSHIP him. Instead, he ALWAYS directed worship to Almighty God...the same One that HE (Jesus) prayed to and worshipped.

Jesus said "FOLLOW me"...not "worship me". Our POWER is in FOLLOWING the Master, because it is following him that exercises and cultivates in us the Spiritual Powers to Emulate Him...become LIKE Him...as He said.

I know, people have gone around this bush for ages, and still we go 'round and 'round. I just had to give my input.

RM

LovelyPrincessAliya · (#127 (**permalink**))

One Zero Seven wrote:

Quote:

Salaam (Peace) to all.

LPA,

The only inconsistency in your proposal is that Jesus never once claimed to be "God", nor did he ever ask anyone to WORSHIP him. Instead, he ALWAYS directed worship to Almighty God...the same One that HE (Jesus) prayed to and worshipped.

Jesus said "FOLLOW me"...not "worship me". Our POWER is in FOLLOWING the Master, because it is following him that exercises and cultivates in us the Spiritual Powers to Emulate Him...become LIKE Him...as He said.

I know, people have gone around this bush for ages, and still we go 'round and 'round. I just had to give my input.

RM

Quote:

well, the purpose of Christ being here on earth was to offer salvation. The reason he died on the cross was because he knew the only way to save us from sin and eternal damnation was if he sacrifice the only one that was pure (himself)..so that when WE die...we can remember he offered himself out of love and we are to offer ourselves to him out of complete submission..

Quote:

God is not a person..we came in the Form of man..because in order to be in a human state..he had to take the form of a human...

Quote:

God is like Title..not a state of being..if it was so..that would give God human characteristics.....

jamal786 · (#128 (**permalink**))

^^ Tell me... which part of that did Jesus state?

Furthermore, IF "God is not a person"..BUT "came in the Form of man..because in order to be in a human state..he had to take the form of a human..." .. IF THIS was so.. "that would give God human characteristics."

Form of a man + human state = human characteristics.

However, Jesus said none of this either, therefore your whole arguement is inconsistant.

As it has been said, "Jesus never once claimed to be "God", nor did he ever ask anyone to WORSHIP him. Instead, he ALWAYS directed worship to Almighty God...the same One that HE (Jesus) prayed to and worshipped."

.. if you can prove otherwise then do so!

If not, then you would in effect be "submitting" to god also. The one most high almighty god, known in arabic as ALLAH.

TheStudent · (#129 (**permalink**))

Aliya,
Is God not Unique? Is there ANYTHING else in creation like Him? Is it not more logically feasible that like all of the other 124,000 prophets, Jesus was just one? whos birth was more miraculous - Adam or Jesus? did Adam (or Jesus for that matter) ever claim to be God? Did Adam or Jesus SUBMIT TO THE WILL OF GOD?

KANOBI · (#130 (**permalink**))

One Zero Seven wrote:

Quote:

KANOBI wrote:

Quote:

If Allah willed he would have made mankind one nation, but they continue in their differences, excepting those on whom your Lord has mercy. To that end, he created them and perfectly is fulfilled the word of your Lord: 'I shall assuredly fill Gehenna with jinns and men altogether.'" (Sura 11:118-119).

Can any of you 107 or Jamal give me commentry on this verse?

Quote:

Sure, KANOBI, if you would be so kind as to give US commentary on THESE verses:

Quote:

Romans 9
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Quote:

Mind you, I am a Student of BOTH Books - Bible and Qur'an -so you can't accuse me of favoring one over the other...not in Truth, anyway.

Quote:

I think that whatever "commentary" you give for the Biblical verses, if it is reasonable, could also apply to the Qur'anic verses.

Quote:

RM

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/

Check it out they lack muslims.

Quote:

Romans 9 - Introduction

Romans 9 - Introduction

by Robert Anderson

The following text was from a radio debate between myself and a Reformed believer. It has been edited for this format. Unless otherwise noted, the Scripture is from the New Revised Standard version of the Bible.

Roman 9 has always been one of the most difficult passages of the New Testament to interpret. This is due in part because of the agendas that we often bring to text when we are interpreting this passage.

1. Reformed believers tend to see this as a proof text for their particular position on the supposition that God chooses individuals for salvation apart from any choice of the individual.

2. Many other believers will avoid this passage altogether or labor to see some form of justification for God's choosing in the passage (which I believe is there if we are willing to find it).

However, I believe that the passage is a critical support for Paul's overall argument in Romans and must be dealt with within that context. Therefore, I would propose the following proposition for my position in this debate:

"Romans 9 must be interpreted within the context of Paul's argument concerning redemption and provides a justification for the redefinition of the covenant people of God. Therefore, the election it speaks to is corporate, with entry into that covenant through faith."

I do not believe that this long discussion will do justice to either my position or to my opponents'. Rather it is my desire that we open your minds to encourage further investigation into these topics and as Paul told the church in Rome, that we might "share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you-or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine" (Romans 1:11b-12).

First Statement - Romans 9 in Context

Any proper exegesis of a Biblical passage must begin by putting aside our presuppositions and examining the passage within context. By saying this, I want to begin my discussion of Romans 9 by examining two things.

First, of course, we want to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9 within the narrative context of his letter and how this particular passage fits within Paul's larger thesis that he is presenting to the Romans.

As I do this, I also want to examine the historical context in which the author and the audience dwell and their basic paradigm or view of the covenant community that they would have had as they read this text. A key principle of exegesis is that a text cannot mean something to me that was not intended for the original audience. So we need to examine at least some basic aspects of how the audience would have heard the text and what Paul was getting at within his historical context.

Paul's Overall Agenda in Romans

As Paul begins his dialogue in the book of Romans, he presents what I would call his primary thesis statement for his argument in Romans 1:16-17 -

16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."

I call this an argument, because any logical presentation that has premises, claims, and conclusions (or resolutions) is simply that - a logical argument for a case that needs proving.

In the case of Romans, Paul is dealing with a problem that has manifested itself historically in the church as documented in the book of Acts and which Paul consistently deals with in his letter to other churches. For Paul, there has been a change in the covenant community that has met resistance by the established community. That is, Paul is dealing with the issue of the entry of Gentiles into the covenant community, which he now recognizes as the church.

This is a common theme in the letters of Paul -

1. The letter to the Galatians presents one of Paul earliest arguments for this, culminating in that well known assertion that "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:28-29).

2. In his letter to the Ephesians, he tells the Gentile believers that "now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14) For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us" (Ephesians 2:13-14).

Why was this an issue for the Jewish believers in Christ? To understand this, we need to understand the Jewish concept of the covenant community. And we need to see this from the Jewish perspective for two reasons:

1. Paul and almost all of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. He comes out of this tradition and his writing will be consistent with it. It is simply part of his worldview, which has been expanded in Christ.

2. If Christianity is the successor to Judaism in terms of the covenant relationship that humanity has with God, it must be consistent with the concept of the inheritance of the promise that is found in Judaism. Christianity completes Judaism. It does not usurp it.

To understand the argument that Paul will present in Romans and the nature of the conflict he is dealing with, then, it seems we must first delve briefly into the Jewish mindset on how salvation worked.

I like the way N. T. Wright states this (Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992), 457.) -

'The basic Jewish answer to the question, "How is the creator dealing with evil within his creation?" was of course that he had called Israel.'

While Jewish thought and religious practice varied in the first century, the concept of election held by Jewish writers was equivalent to being in the covenant community with God. That is, God had elected Israel or a sub-group (the remnant) within Israel to carry the promises of God and also as a means of dealing with evil in this world. The covenant people were "saved" from this world by being set apart as the people of God. The work that God started with Adam and Eve was renewed in Abraham.

Individuals in the community were the elect simply because of their inclusion in the covenantal community. Indeed, there are phrases within Jewish writings that place God's election of a people side by side with phrases emphasizing the free will of individuals. As noted in the scrolls of Qumran, human choice was combined with God's election and there were "those who volunteer to join the elect of God." The members of a community were called the elect and community were composed of "all those who had freely devoted themselves."

While the Essene communities were monastic and extreme, they held to the basic Jewish concept of election. In their mind, voluntary entry into their community was entry into the elect.

(Note: See also James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, for addition information on this aspect of Jewish election as a whole.)

This corporate concept also was held by other Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees, and was common to Jewish thought.

Does this perspective translate over into Christianity? Absolutely! In fact, the focus of the New Testament discussions on election and covenant are to show that the covenant community has expanded to include those who are Gentiles.

N. T. Wright puts it this way -

"The early Christians, on the basis of everything we know of them from both within and without the canonical 'New Testament', accepted this answer… Israel's purpose had come to its head in Jesus' work, … Those who now belonged to Jesus' people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel's history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation…"

Paul's thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17 provides us with a simple direct statement of his intent for the entire discourse in this letter. His overall purpose in writing the letter is to provide the case and means for reforming the covenant community. It is within the frameworks of this Jewish covenantal thinking of community and Paul's thesis that we come to Romans 9.

Now, all arguments have three basic components that must be present:

1) A problem or issue is presented
2) A series of claims or evidences are presented related to that
3) A conclusion is drawn from the claims that relates to the problem at hand

In this section of Scripture, which really encompasses Romans 9 to 11, Paul is going to address the issue of how we are to understand the Jewish people - who were called "God's elect." In this passage Paul will examine the thesis that he has presented in the light of the Jewish perception that the covenant is restricted to the descendents of Abraham and those who follow the law. What Paul will show in Romans 9 then is that (to phrase his thesis somewhat differently) -

1. The uniqueness of the Jews as the physical descendents of Abraham is not a criterion for being a member of God's people.

2. Salvation is open to everyone who has faith.

This first point is presented in Paul's introduction to this chapter by focusing on the common Jewish belief that descent from Abraham is a requirement of covenant membership. This is found in the first five verses of Romans 9:

1) I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit- 2) I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3) For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4) They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5) to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

This issue can be summarized as follows:

Paul's overwhelming concern for the Jews (his own people), to whom belongs the covenant, who are considered by the flesh to be the elect, is that they are lost. Consequently, there appears to be a failure of the covenant for Israel.

Paul then presents a series of claims or evidences (Romans 9:6-29) that ultimately must support the conclusion given by Paul. That conclusion is found in Romans 9.30-10:4 (keep in mind that the chapter divisions are somewhat artificial).

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33) as it is written,

"See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

10:1)Brothers and sisters, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2) I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3) For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God's righteousness. 4) For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul's ultimate conclusion is that the Jews as a people - the covenant people - are lost because they did not submit to God's righteousness, which is found in the faith of Christ (10:3). Those who are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those who have achieved righteousness by faith - by submitting to God's righteousness found in Christ.

Now, I want you to focus on this conclusion carefully. Nowhere in the conclusion does Paul indicate that individuals are elected to heaven or hell before their response of submitting to God's righteousness in Christ. Rather Paul is simply stating that Gentiles are saved by faith, and Jews who reject Christ are lost because THEY DID NOT SUBMIT to God's righteousness in Christ. People are saved because they respond by faith to God's act in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, having established Paul's issue and his conclusion to that issue, we can confidently state that this passage is not designed as an argument for pre-faith election of individuals in Christ. Rather the conclusion of Paul in this text specifically states that those who are lost are those who (to quote Paul) "have not submitted to God's righteousness". However, those who are saved, as Paul indicates of the Gentiles, are those who (again, quoting Paul) "have attained … righteousness through faith." In the second case, the response of faith has RESULTED IN the attainment of righteousness, not vice versa.

The various claims or evidences found between Paul's presentation of the issue and his conclusion (Romans 9:6-29) must OF NECESSITY support this conclusion in order for his argument to be coherent. We cannot examine these in isolation of this conclusion. Rather, they must be examined within context and support the entry of individuals into the covenant by their submission in faith to Christ.

How they support this argument will be presented very briefly in my next two statements.

Second Statement - Jacob and Esau

It could be argued that what I am calling the "evidences" or "claims" can stand alone as statements of faith and that while they fit into the overall argument that Paul is presenting, in themselves they have an internal integrity that allows them to be treated as sub-arguments. Indeed, we can see three such sub-arguments among the claims.

However, they cannot stand independently or be contradictory to the overall argument presented in the text of Romans 9. The conclusion to that argument states that the attainment of righteousness RESULTS FROM the act of faith.

Let me deal with one of these claims at this point - In Romans 9:6, Paul raises the issue of whether the word of God has failed.

6) It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7) and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." 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 descendants. . 9) For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."

Notice how Paul phrases this as he quotes Genesis 18:14. The question is not about whether one person is saved above another. The question being posed is whether God has failed to fulfill the promise to Abraham concerning the covenant and his descendents. Every single book of the Pentateuch (what the Jews would understand as the Law), reiterates the promise of the land and the fact that he would be their God. It is also found in the histories, the writings, and prophets. Israel was told to look to Abraham as their root. The promise is re-affirmed in Jewish writings during the inter-testamental period as well.

So if salvation and the covenant are open to everyone, there is the appearance that God has not been faithful to his word - his word has failed. What Paul has to do to defend his conclusion is show that the promise is not restricted to those who are physically descended from Abraham. Therefore, he approaches the problem by simply saying that God had not chosen all the descendents of Abraham to carry the promise, but only the children of the promise - Isaac and then Jacob. If "the covenant people" is the way God is dealing with evil in this world, then God's promise of Isaac was that his people would serve this function. They would provide a blessing to the world. Specifically, God's promise to Abraham from the same passage that Paul quotes above, was "that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (Genesis 18:18).
Paul's point here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise - which is the issue at stake here. The children of the promise are those who will provide the blessing. They are not necessarily the children of the flesh.

Paul goes on and gives a second illustration to prove his point using Jacob and Esau as the example.

10) Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11) Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose of election might continue, 12) not by works but by his call) she was told, "The elder shall serve the younger." 13) As it is written,
"I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau."

Now many people have misunderstood this text. Some have developed the belief that God literally hated the individual Esau. Yet if we examine it historically, we will see that this is not the case. The only thing that is truly said to Rebecca in Genesis 25 is this:

23) And the LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples born of you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the elder shall serve the younger."

Here the statement if very simply - there are two nations that are going to come from Rebecca and the elder brother will server the younger (who will be stronger). That the covenant promise passed to Jacob is not to be disputed. His descendents would carry the blessing to the world. However, we know from Genesis 33 that Jacob and Esau were reconciled and that both received physical blessing from God and from each other. Jacob simply became the bearer for the promise. In fact, Jacob partially fulfills this choosing of God by bringing blessing to Esau!

Where then does Paul get this statement about God loving Jacob and hating Esau? The statement "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau" comes approximately 1500 years later and does not refer to the individuals, but to two nations - Israel (then a Persian colony) and Edom. The text is taken from the prophet Malachi and concerns the oppression of post-exilic Israel by the Edomites. God is simply re-affirming that they are the covenant people, and their return to the land is part of his plan for them, and that he will protect them. But we must keep in mind that this statement CANNOT be taken as a foreordained decree of election because it is a consequence of God's choice, not a premise to that choice. Historically, it comes, in time, 1500 years after the birth of Jacob and Esau.

How then does this statement fit into the argument for Gentile acceptance into the covenant? Paul is simply stating that God has the right to choose people OUTSIDE of their ethnic or nationalistic heritage. While the Edomites were descended from Abraham, they were not part of the covenant people. From an ethnic perspective (which is the way Paul is presenting the argument), in order for Edomites to become part of that covenant, they would have to enter into Israel (or the Jewish people) by the act of circumcision.

Now to go back to Romans 9, as I have shown through this one example, the claims given in the argument are there to show that God does have the power and authority to make choices, and he is not locked into the assumptions made by some in Paul's implied audience that the covenant is open only to those of physical descent from Abraham. His choices are made based solely on his own authority and not on works or religious rituals of individuals (like circumcision). That is why part of Paul's conclusion in this section is that "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for EVERYONE who believes."
Third Statement - Paul's Use of Prophecy

In this next summary, I would like to examine those claims given by Paul in support of his conclusion.

Paul's use of Old Testament Passages

Specifically, I would like to focus on Paul's use of prophecy and Old Testament narrative to support his final conclusion, which I will repeat here -

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because THEY DID NOT STRIVE FOR IT on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.

We have already examined Paul's first evidence. Now let us examine the remaining two evidences closer to see how Paul is using the prophetic passages he quotes.

As an ex-Pharisee, Paul would not be ignorant of the prophets' intentions within these scriptures and he would follow that intent in his analysis of present "Israel's" condition.

Fundamentally, what Paul is showing is that God is recreating or remolding Israel, the covenant community, based on the work of Jesus Christ. The passages that he chooses then are designed to focus on the work of God with this community, not with the individuals.
Given the timeframe I have, I will not get through all of the passages, but let me suggest that you jot down and examine these five passages:

1. Malachi 1:1-5 - which speaks of God's favor of Israel over Edom as a people.

I have already discussed this passage.

2. Exodus 33:1-23 - God starting Israel all over again with Moses because of their disobedience.

3. Exodus 9 - The passage of the hardening of Pharaoh.

4. Jeremiah 18:1-11 - the potter and the clay. This passage speaks of God remolding Israel into another vessel.

5. Hosea 1:1-9 - God choosing a new people to be his own instead of Israel.

Romans 9:14-18 - Moses and Mercy

Let us look at how Paul uses these passages in Romans 9. To do that, I would like to go to the second evidence, in Romans 9:14-18. Here Paul poses the following question:

What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part?

The intent of the question reflects again the issue of the fate of ethnic Israel. If God has made the promise to them through Abraham, then is he being unjust in his decision about how to exercise the promise? We have to affirm with Paul -

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."

Where God's mercy will fall is God's decision. It is not based on ethnic origin, but on whom he chooses - which, as we have seen in Paul's conclusion, is on those who have faith.

Now Paul goes on to conclude this claim in an interesting way. He states the conclusion of this claim as follows:

16) So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

Paul has already concluded in prior chapters that the works of the law do not yield righteousness. Justification (or "rectification" as it should be translated per J. Louis Martyn in the Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians) comes by God's mercy - his merciful response to our faith.

But what does it mean when we say that it is not "by human will"? Does that mean that faith is not sourced in the individual, but comes as some act of God?

If we examine the text we will see that the question here is NOT about the source of faith, but rather whether human obedience to the law yields God's favor. The answer is simply, "No." Only faith yields God's favor, as Paul has already stated.

But what are we to do with Pharaoh? Did not God raise him up simply to destroy him?

17) For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." 18) So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

Is this not clear evidence that God does make some people to be "hardened" to destruction?

This is one of the dangers of trying to exegete Romans 9 in isolation of the broader context of Paul's overall argument found in Romans 9-11. Most serious commentators would shudder at what we are doing in isolating Romans 9 to its own text and insist that we treat all three chapters as a unit. So in the light of this fact, I think we must understand the following about this statement.

1. First, Paul is borrowing this very short text from Exodus 9:16 to show that Israel as a people have been hardened by God. This does not mean all or even specific individuals have been hardened, since some are clearly followers of Christ (including Paul himself). He is simply speaking in general terms concerning "his people" as a whole.

2. Second, we must understand this hardening is NOT to damnation. It is a hardening for a purpose, just like Pharaoh's hardening was for a purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh was so that "God's name would "resound through all the earth." God's hardening of Israel was so that salvation would come to the Gentiles. In Romans 11:11, in speaking of Israel's hardening, Paul poses the following question (11:11):

11) So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?

Paul's answer is an emphatic "By no means!"

"But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous."

Their stumbling is for a purpose (very similar to Pharaoh's).

3. Finally, this hardening is temporary. Paul is very clear that through this process, a return of the Jews will eventually occur - not to the old covenant, but to the new.

"11:12) Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"

Now even if we were to presume that the hardening is of individuals, then on the basis of this text in Romans 11, which is part of the overall argument and speaks of the same people, we must conclude that it is not a permanent hardening. For in this passage Paul speaks of the hardening and the inclusion in the covenant of the same people!
We must therefore see this as a temporary hardening of a people. God's design here is for Israel to become an instrument (SKEUOS or "vessel" is the term commonly used in Romans 9) in God's hands to accomplish his will by that hardening. Therefore, they have become an instrument of wrath, but only for a time.

Romans 9:21 - The Potter and the Clay

We now come to Paul's final evidence, which is also posed by a question:

19) You will say to me then, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Paul has already concluded based on the first two claims that:

1. God's Word has not failed. God has the right to choose to save people outside of the ethnic Israel. (This will be dealt with below.)

2. God has hardened Israel to declare his glory outside the ethnic boundaries of Israel. But this hardening is instrumental and temporary. These people are fully redeemable if they come to Christ.
If this is the case, then logically this question would lead to the next - why does God find fault in anyone? Paul's response is one of those rhetorical techniques of rebutting the question with a short response - Who are you, oh man, to question God?

Now there is often an "AH HA!" given here where people will say, "See, he is speaking of individuals! He is speaking of a man who is questioning God!"

But I think this is misconstruing the text. First, Paul is posing the question in a rhetorical fashion - so that he can answer like this. Second - and forgive me for getting a bit technical here - the way Paul responds is a bit unique. The reference "oh man" is the word ANTHROPOS (from which we get our word anthropology - the study of humanity). Paul presents this term in the vocative case, which is used for direct address. However, we know that there is no single man that Paul is addressing. Paul is using it as a title for humanity in general. What Paul is re-affirming here is what he has affirmed in the first claim - that human beings as a whole do not dictate how God builds the covenant community.

We then come to that curious argument about the potter and the clay.

Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

This concept is taken right out of Jeremiah 18:1-8.

1) The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2) "Come, go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words." 3) So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4) The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him.
5) Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6) Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the LORD. Just like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7) At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8) but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.

Now follow me here because this is very important for Paul's argument. Paul has been talking about the remolding of the covenant community. When challenged (rhetorically) as to why God would find fault, he states that it is not the place of humanity to challenge what God is doing. To prove his point, he goes back to the Jeremiah prophecy where Israel IS RESHAPED because of their sin into something else - another vessel! The covenant community is remade by the potter as far back as the prophet Jeremiah.

How is it remade? Paul goes back to another prophecy found in Hosea 1, to show that the Gentiles who "were not my people" are now called "my people" and "beloved" (a name reserved for Israel).

26) "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they shall be called children of the living God."

But not only the Gentiles are included. There is a remnant of believers from Israel as well. They are included as well.

27) And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28) for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively." 29) And as Isaiah predicted,
"If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
we would have fared like Sodom
and been made like Gomorrah."

So what is Paul's conclusion for this claim? That God has remolded the covenant community as he saw fit (it is not for us to question why or how he has done this) and it contains both Jews and Gentiles that have the faith of Jesus Christ.

Now the three claims show simply that God is remolding the covenant community by his own will and it includes those beyond the ethnic boundaries of Israel - all those of faith.

Fourth Statement - Romans 9 and the Election of Individual to Salvation
The letter to the Romans played a very important role during the reformation period in the formation of theological positions for Martin Luther and John Calvin. For Martin Luther, Romans 1-8 was extremely importing in his investigation of the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith. John Calvin saw Romans 9-11 as a support for his doctrine of predestination. And Reformed teachers have followed these lines of thought for some time.

However, the science of hermeneutics and Biblical exegesis has made tremendous strides since the time of the Reformation. One of the great benefits of our modern methods is the recovery of the study of classical rhetoric, the ancient form of argument that Paul uses in at least two of his letters - Galatians and Romans. According to Professor Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University, "all of Romans can be read as a single rhetorical argument with each section of the letter serving a different function." It is a "scholastic diatribe", with many of the stylistic features of a diatribe found throughout the text (rhetorical questions, apostrophe, abrupt responses, etc.), but key is that it uses a dialect mode of argument.

A dialect mode of argument basically takes two conflicting ideas and evaluates them for their accuracy and soundness. Now we can see from the thesis statement and from Paul argument to this point that one of these ideas at least is (as Luther discovered), justification by faith. The other (the antithesis), as we have seen from the conclusion of Romans 9 is righteousness or justification by the works of the law. Paul is placing these side by side to support his thesis of justification by the faith of Christ, and to demonstrate that righteousness cannot be achieved by works of the law in spite of Jewish ethnic heritage.

Given the thesis of Paul and the antithesis of the works of the law, one has to wonder where the idea of individual election by decree would fit into this argument and why Paul would introduce it into the letter. It supports neither Paul's thesis nor the antithesis - in fact it makes both positions irrelevant since justification is by decree before any act of faith or any works takes place. It simply does not belong in the argument and has been imposed on that argument by theologians to support their views.

But if we are to say that God has decreed that those who come to him IN FAITH are those he will redeem, and then he does move those of faith into the group we would call "the elect", then this fits the thesis and the argument very well. It also explains the need for Romans 9 as an explanation that Jewish heritage and ceremonial law is not what makes one a member of God's family.

Faith is what does that.

Final Statement - What is at stake?
As I close this discussion I have a few thoughts I would like to leave with you.

First, this text is used to defend a variety of doctrines and is highly debated. Some might object to this analysis in terms of the debate itself, but the question is - what is really at stake here?

Is it the doctrine of election that many see this text supporting? Well, the Calvinist claims to have many verses that support the doctrine of election. Therefore, this one passage certainly is not that important in the overall argument for their case.

Is it the doctrine of salvation? God has provided our salvation for all who believe. Reformers and non-reformers alike confess this truth. It is found in the cross of Christ - God united with humanity in our sin and the ultimate effect of our sin - death.

Is it God's sovereignty? I hardly think a sovereign God needs me or anyone else to protect him from the misconceptions of humanity, or even from a misunderstanding church. Misunderstandings of doctrine are manifest throughout the history of Christianity and are rampant today in thousands of denominations. God will go on when we are all long gone.

Is it God's righteousness and justice that is at stake here? We can argue all day on how to define those concepts, but we all affirm that God is good, and just, and righteous. It is humanity that is not.

No, I think these issues are simply secondary and in some respects, personal issues that individuals like to argue about.

What is at stake here is the integrity of Scripture itself. The Reformed churches have preached Sola Scriptura as a guiding principle for almost 500 years. Roman Catholic and Orthodox believers, while speaking of an ecclesiastical authority within the church that matches Holy Scripture, would be appalled if anyone suggested that ecclesiastical authority could contradict Scripture. We all hold Scripture in the highest regard and we all believe that God is speaking in Holy Scripture.

Yet when we come to Scripture we all bring a bit of ourselves. We have this need of structure and form and theory that subconsciously allows us to fit God into a box of our own making, using words like "sovereignty", "righteousness", and "love" to frame the God that fits our paradigm.

But if we are really to hear God, we must be willing to put aside our presuppositions and approach the text within the purpose for which it was given. All of the letters are occasional - they are written to address a specific issue within the church receiving the letter. Both historically and through the Biblical narratives we know that the issue of Gentile entry into the covenant was a major issue that ultimately led to the final split of Christianity with Judaism as the Jewish councils of Jamnia. We need to read Romans within the first century framework of controversy and struggle in the church.

The task of exegesis is simply this - striving to hear Scripture in the way it was delivered in its historical context and narrative context.

I began this discussion with a very basic proposition:

"Romans 9 must be interpreted within the context of Paul's argument concerning redemption and provides a justification for the redefinition of the covenant people of God. Therefore, the election it speaks to is corporate, with entry into that covenant through faith."

I have shown how this proposition fits with Paul's thesis statement of Romans 1:16-17.

16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."

I then showed how the rhetorical argument in Romans 9 fits within the thought paradigms of the first century believers and narrative framework of the letter itself. Any attempt at good exegesis must strive to accomplish this, putting aside our presuppositions as we enter the text. It is my hope that I have at least opened to the door for further thinking in this area.

Second and finally, I want to admonish you concerning the unity of the church. We live by the faith of Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins. We have entered a new creation because of his faithfulness on the cross. In this we all agree.

I hope that this discourse is somewhat educational in terms of the alternative position concerning this much debated text. But it must never be used divisively. We are members of the household of God - his kingdom. Our call in Christ is to be united in Him. Therefore, I think a final admonition must come from Paul himself from this letter (Romans 14:17-19).

17) For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18) The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. 19) Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Bob Anderson
Swordman53

DISCUSS THE ARTICLE HERE:

KANOBI · (#131 (**permalink**))

Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43

Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.

Themethods God used to encourage the Islamic army seem to bedifferentto the methods we would expect from God in the bible.I would expectGodof thebibletoemphasise his power and encouragehis army to have faith in his power rather thandecieve his army into thinking thesize of the opposing army is small.If Godmakes his armybelieve the opposing armyis smallwhat room is left for faith. The army did not fight because they had faith, they fought because they thought theenemy wassmall in number. This is unconsistent with all the battles we see in the bible.

KANOBI · (#132 (**permalink**))

Muttashabihat

Can someone please explain a little bit more about this?