/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Also, if anyone says Romans 9 is about nations or Jews and gentiles or Jews and God, I will go full Calvinist on you. It's like going full /pol/ack but instead of bombarding you with statistics and stuff I'm bombard you with scriptural evidence for Calvinism while at the same time refuting your interpretation.

>>726928

Unless of course you can adequately defend your position, then I'm all ears.

>>726928

i'll bite.

>>726930

You think Romans 9 is talking about nations?

>>726931

yeah it seems pretty obvious to me

>>726932

Oh boy. I'm gonna get my bible out for this one. I already alluded to it in my OP but I'll go more in depth here. First of all we'll start in Romans 8:28 where Paul begins to talk about the golden chain of redemption. All would clearly understand that here Paul is talking about salvation to eternal life:

<And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

The word you need to focus on here is "call". Keep that in mind for later.

Now we get to Romans 9 and it starts off with Paul showing his grief that his fellow Jews haven't accepted Christ:

<I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

Romans 9:1-3

This raises the question in your mind. If Israel were the ones the messiah came for then how come they didn't accept Him but rather a bunch of gentiles who probably know nothing about Jewish history do? Surely if anyone is gonna recognise the messiah it would be the Jews who waited for Him in the first place. Paul answers this in the following verses:

<But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Romans 9:6-8

Here Paul makes a distinction between Israel and Israel. Namely, those who are descendants of the nation of Israel and those who are isreal in spirit. This distinction is very important because it shows us how Paul does not see God saving people based off of their piety and not on race or ethnicity. Paul's answer to the claim against Christianity is that it is not those who are a part of Israel who are truly from Israel but rather the individuals who are children of the promise who at truly Israel. So here we see Paul make a distinction between nations and individuals.

Paul then goes on to give a specific example in romans 9:11-13 which states:

<though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. "

These two were individuals where Paul uses to prove the unconditional nature of God's election. He references the childrens mother and father, birth and God's plan for them. Some say "oh but they were fathers of nations." Yeaa…. No! Remember when I told you to remember Romans 8:28 and the salvific word "call" which was in reference to salvation? well, it appears here again when talking about Jacob and Esau. This proves that Paul has salvation in mind and not God's plan for nations. In fact, to say it is about nations is to make Paul contradict what he just said about there being a distinction between nations and elect individuals. This proves that Paul isn't talking about nations but rather individuals.

>>726932

Paul also gives example the pharoah but I think you get the point. The term "call" appears again later on in Romans 9 and further proves my point.

>>726936

>to say it is about nations is to make Paul contradict what he just said about there being a distinction between nations and elect individuals. This proves that Paul isn't talking about nations but rather individuals.

His distinction was between the children of flesh and the children of the promise. These are the nations I'm talking about: the Jews and the Christians. Your interpretation doesn't make sense because it treats the rest of Romans 9 independently from the beginning of the chapter. They are actually examples to prove Paul's point about the fleshly nation and the spiritual nation.

>>726927

Ah yes, pretending to be interested in Roman catholicism when really you're just interested in spouting your Calvinist talking points, just like when you pretended to be interested in Orthodoxy. Why do you insist on wasting everyone's time by doing this over and over?

>>726945

The wokest thread still has to be made by him: he gets interested in Calvinism but there are a few points where he interprets Romans 9 in a Calvinistic way making them incompatible.

Sage for shitpost

>>726945

If you compare this thread to my last one you'll see that I have changed my views from what I've heard people tell me. Would a dishonest person admit when he's wrong?

>>726943

I'm not gonna argue with you if you can't even understand basic concepts. You literally chose one part of my post to refute and ignored the rest of it. In fact the very thing you said is refuted in what I wrote.

>>726948

>here are a few points where he interprets Romans 9 in a Calvinistic way making them incompatible.

Actually, I was speaking with a Catholic and he said similar things to myself. I couldn't get in contact with him again so I just made a thread hoping it would summon him. I understand that there are some parts that you would think are incompatible with the Catholic faith but I would like to know your interpretation. How do you harmonise the scriptures with your belief?

Also, I should add. How do Catholics interpret the rhetorical questions raised by Paul in both verse 14 and 19 of Romans 9? What did they believe and how was Paul responding to it?

>>727266

Hi, thanks for responding to me thread. So I recently spoke to a individual on discord and he really helped me understand the Catholic position. This was shortly after I made this thread and the only part I had issue with the Catholic position was that God was not active in both imparting Grace on believers as well as damning. He explained that God is active not in the sense that He causes us to sin and go hell, since that would make Him the author of sin, but rather that He let's us fall into sin; not giving sufficient grace to fight temptation or not sin, while giving the elect the necessary amount of grace needed to not only come to Him but actually come to repentance. He referenced Aquinas and how he believed in a distinction between efficient grace and affective grace if I recall correctly. All have the possibility to come to God but God only intends some to come to Him.

Shortly after this I told him that his answer helped me and I said I am not a Calvinist anymore.

>>727560

Despite formerly being a Calvinist, I have never actually read Augustine's, Aquinas or even John Calvin's work on free will on grace (but I will hop on it).

But I do have some issues with simply saying that God actively reprobates only those He knows will not accept His free gift of grace, His calling. This is mainly due to what we see in Romans 9:11 which states:

<though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls

It seems like God's election is determined by His purpose of election and having His will be done so that He may receive the glory He desires. But I was speaking on discord with someone and we spoke about how* God actively reprobates and it isn't necessarily the Calvinist method but rather different. To give an example I used 2 chronicles 18:20-22 which states:

<Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD. 21And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ ‘You will surely entice him and prevail,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours, and the LORD has pronounced disaster against you.”

Here it seems that by God allowing the spirit to go forth and cause the prophets to sin it was as though He had sent the lying spirit but rather it was simply Him allowing the spirit to take its course. This then lead me to believe that God actively reprobates by allowing people to fall to their own evil desires and not giving them the sufficient amount of grace to be able to resist and fight the sinful urge. This, the individual said, is compatible with the Catholic view since the individuals still have the possibility to resist sin and come to repentance by God's Grace but it hasn't been predestined(single predestination) for them to do so.

This, I think, solves the "is God the author of sin" paradox.

>>727599

I see it more as God giving people a real chance at repentance and coming to the knowledge of Him instead of seeing it like you giving a dog broccoli who doesn't like broccoli, see it more like a mother who has a drug addicted son and so desperately wants him to come back and tries her best but the child is just so deep in sin that he can't possibly accept her. The same goes for man. All day long God holds out His hand to an unrepentant people.

<“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing

Matthew 23:37

The significance of this is that they had a chance to come to God. They can't say in hell, God it was your fault, because God gave them a chance. All they will have to blame is themselves. Remember, even God is patient with the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

>>727599

Also, thanks for the link of Aquinas.

>>727614

>It could be you or I even

Despite what James, stop it Joe stop, white says, synergism is biblical. God gives people varying degrees of grace but who are you owe man to answer back to God. All people are given sufficient grace to come to Him and James even states that we must work together with the grace God has given us to then recieving more:

<You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

James 2:22

The word here for "active along with" is actually the Greek word "συνεργέω" (sunergeó), synergism. Calvinists hate this. Although I still believe that James 2 is talking about how one is declared righteous as opposed to made righteous, it is still erroneous for people such as James White to attack the concept of synergism when it is in fact a biblical doctrine.

Don't sweat it man, you are in a better place than most and are more than capable of coming to Christ given that you suffer and work along with His graces so that He may give you more.

<For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

>>727620

Are you referring to the section of the link you sent me here: Are merits the cause or reason of predestination, or reprobation, or election?

>>727622

You have believe in hypothetical universalism. Perhaps Christ sacrifice was more of a open invitation and anyone who came to it would have all their sins taken away. But since they reprobate never seek the cross they never have their sins taken a way.

"Cyprian (A.D. 250)

“All the sheep which Christ hath sought up by His blood and sufferings are saved…Whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ shall only escape…He redeemed the believers with the price of His own blood…Let him be afraid to die who is not reckoned to have any part in the cross and sufferings of Christ.”"

>He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2

>>727623

Also, are you Catholic or eastern orthodox. Actually, I probably shouldn't assume that. What is your denomination?

>>727635

Yeah, understandible. One thing I found interesting is that second link you sent. It quotes Ambrose interpretation of Romans 9 where Paul says God will have mercy on whome He will have mercy and harden whome He will. According to Ambrose this was talking about how God already knows what humans will do and so hardens and has mercy on the believer accordingly, it was just funny to see this. Really makes you wonder how one even comes to this biblical interpretation. And Augustine being not as well versed in biblical reading was able to understand it better.

>>726927

>person of color

>wants to become Catholic

Checks out. No European wants to be Catholic.

>>727680

As for Augustine, yeah, he wasn't as scripturally trained as his contemporary church fathers. In fact I read somewhere that he was working on writing a commentary on the whole Bible but stopped because he didn't feel as thorough he had the necessary knowledge to go about doing it. And when it comes to evangelising, I think it's important because all people have a possibility to he saved. Because of this we can truly hope for the salvation of the whole world, despite how unlikely it may be. Even the phraoah could have been saved but due to his hardened heart was unable to come to God. Don't lose hope, we all can be saved.

>>727685

Is this a good or bad thing, what point are you trying to make?

>>726928

The elect is neither nations nor individuals. It is the church.

>>727725

I can accept this. There is no salvation outside the church and those who are in it are offsprings of the spirit.

You probably would be interested in some of the books of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, if you haven't already read an of that. Also, regarding Romans, Thomas Aquinas's full commentary on Romans is available in English here.

https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/st-thomas-aquinas-on-romans

>>730027

Oh, wow. Great. I skipped to Romans 9 and I'm currently reading his exegesis and it's amazing. He deals with it appropriately. He doesn't fall into the odd mistake of thinking Romans 9 is talking about nations or Israel. I have a new found respect for Aquinas. He's not only a great philosopher but also a great theologian!!!!

So reading the Old Catholic Encyclopedia cleared this up for me. Majority of the Latin Fathers and Greek Fathers agree that God reprobates pre-emptively on account of deeds, only Augustine and subsequently Aquinas didn't hold this (since Aquinas' idol is basically Augustine and would rarely dare to contradict him). I find this explanation easier to understand rather than saying God arbitrarily reprobates. This was the understanding that I had in general before anyways. I remember reading Augustine's reprobation theory before and was confused and uneasy by it, but I believe it may have been from a Protestant of secular source, so I just left it at that. I have to go with the majority of the Fathers saying that God reprobates pre emptively on account of deeds. Like my example previously of if you know your dog hates carrots, you aren't gonna put it out on a plate for him just for it to be wasted, cause doggo is gonna eat it. The cause of you not putting out the carrots is still you, the dog's owner, but it is because of your foreknowledge that Mr Doggo will not eat the carrots.

<This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prævisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:8), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matthew 25:34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matthew 25:41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

>>730504

I'll sadly have to disagree with you here. I take the Augustinian and thomistic view since scripture clearly states that grace is unmerrited. Your answer seems to imply that grace is merited based off of what God sees in a man.

The first mistake you made was stating that God reprobates preemptively. In that He forknowns who will accept His call and only calls them. But this is at odds with the clear scriptural teaching of total depravity.

<as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Romans 3:10-11

This here indicates that all are in a similar position. We all have God, we are at odds with Him and do not seem Him. This is why He must take it upon Himself literally change our hearts:

<And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Ezekiel 36:26

This is why I take Aquinas and Augustine's view since their view of predestination is most inline with the biblical teachings. You're analogy if the dog and the carrot implies that there are people who genuinely seek God apart from His grace but without His grace no one can come to God:

<No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:44

>>730504

Also, I had a quick look at Ambrose interpretation of Romans 9 and I have to say that it's just awful. He even has to paraphrase the verse to say what He wants it to say and the paraphrasing goes against Paul's own point. This is why I prefer Aquinas ' interpretation here: https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/st-thomas-aquinas-on-romans

It just runs so smoothly and tries to actually understand what the text is trying to say.

Im a Calvinist again. Mainly because of Romans 11:29 and other verses that utilise similar language:

<For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.