Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

Glad you have that figured out. These clueless scholars still can't come to terms exactly of who the "audience" is for the letter. The most popular is that the audience is a mixed bag, which is exactly what the Church in Rome looked like. The Gentiles, so they understand their place in the big picture of salvation-history, and the Jews so they understand the Story as well.

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

Pel, thanks for your replies. Thoughtful.

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

I agree with the emboldened. Still, Romans is written to a GROUP and is not SO MUCH about individual situations. I studied Clarke's views on the book, hence my generalization.

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

Quick questions...how could God elect nations without electing individuals? If He doesn't elect individuals then in what way can it be assured that nations will be elect? Seems like He would have to elect the parts to make the whole. I just don't see where this allows one to escape the issue, because it's still there...in order for Him to assure the election of a nation He's going to have to assure the election of individuals.

ouden

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

I have to share my recent studies as it relates to this chapter to get some response. I am firmly (or should say am more persuaded) in the Arminian camp. Calvinism, I find, has so many loops holes of illogic, even though some very bright minds and brothers see theology through that lens.

Romans 11, Paul really gets right down to business with Israel.

What follows are Moo's comments on 11:6 -- paraphrased and summarized:

The polemical force of "based on the election of grace" becomes clearer in this verse, as Paul explains just what such a gracious election entails. The principle of grace is antithetical to that of "works"; if God has elected the individuals who make up the remnant "of Grace." it follows that he could not have elected them on the basis of works. The word "works" refers to anything that human beings do. Since Paul's focus is on the basis for the election for Israel, it is quite likely that he would think of these human actions as done specifically in obedience to the Mosaic Law. But... it is not the fact that these works are "torah"works that prevents them from being a basis for election. As Paul's references to the "works" of Abraham (4:2-8) and Jacob & Esau suggest, his problem w/"works" lies not in the fact that they are "torah" works but in the fact that they are human works.

"For if it were otherwise," if human beings could by their own works secure the blessing of God (as Paul points out in the second part of the verse), grace would "no longer" be grace. For grace demands that God be perfectly free to bestow his favor on whomever he chooses. But if God's election were based on what human beings do, his freedom would be violated and he would no longer be acting in grace. For Paul, however, the gracious character of God's activity is a theological axiom, automatically ruling out any idea that would conflict with it.

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

Next, Moo (in footnotes) addresses and acknowledges Arminian rebuttals:

Note the similar argument in Romans 4:3-5. As Morris observes, Paul's teaching here clearly rules out the popular patristic view that God's election is based on his foreknowledge of human works. Many modern scholars, however, will insist that God's grace in election is by no means compromised if that election is based on foreseen faith (Godet). To be sure, Paul distinguishes "works" from faith throughout Romans, and so his denial that election is grace would not mean that it cannot be based on faith. But Paul's conception of God's grace would seem to rule out anything outside God's own free will as a basis for his actions. To make election ultimately dependent on human decision to believe violates Paul's notion of the grace of God. To put it another way, God's grace is for Paul not simply the ultimate cause of salvation (vv5-6). God's grace is the efficient cause of salvation, human faith being not its basis but its results.

Anyone want to chime in on this? I have my thoughts but want to hear from others first. I used to detest Calvinism vs. Arminian discussions (or even without the "versus" nature), but lately I've enjoyed it. I find the answer at neither extreme. I think, my main concern of this chapter is how we define "election." That seems to be Moo's as well.

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

After that, let's talk about the second half of Chapter 11 :)

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

One angle not even related to where I'm going with it is this: God hardened Israel's heart? He punished them in the OT stories for rebelling when He is the one who hardened their heart? Hmmm...

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

Rom 11 Question for discussion:

How can God treat one better than another when both are equally stained by Adam’s sin? Why were the people of Israel given the Law and insight into God’s ways by the prophets only to be given a “spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear to this very day” (v.8)?

Re: Let's Talk Romans: Jacob & Esau, Ishmael & Isa
 

Rom 11 Question for discussion:

How can God treat one better than another when both are equally stained by Adam’s sin? Why were the people of Israel given the Law and insight into God’s ways by the prophets only to be given a “spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear to this very day” (v.8)?