Predestination

[mustbenothing]

(Dave) You've given us no proof that the deuterocanonicals (they are NOT called the apocrypha) contradict the rest of scripture.

(Me) Ummm... please read the thread before making this kind of a comment As I said above:

To me, this only continues to prove that the Apocryphal literature contradict Scripture. But we already know this with Sirach:

Sirach 3:3, 30

Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin

And yet, Scripture teaches that atonement requires blood:

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

[cmotherofpirl]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS7.HTM

[cmotherofpirl]

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS

by James Akin

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find -- anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi -- is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament -- in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection. "The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29).

This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals. The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Fathers Speak

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books -- Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation -- and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

Rewriting Church History

In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church "added" these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent!

Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.

It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He wrote, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled -- the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origen, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origen accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.

However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome's doubt, "For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church -- the standard edition of which was Jerome's own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic inDouche!

[cmotherofpirl]

Deuterocanonical References

in the New Testament

by James Akin

References in New Testament Order

Matthew

Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26

Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15

Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1

Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8

Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12

Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24

Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14

Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4

Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60

Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2

Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1

Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s

Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10

Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11

Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15

Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15

Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6

Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37

Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3

Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19

Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17

Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17

Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10

Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17

Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17

Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1

Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19

Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23

Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s

Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s

Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s

Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3

Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15

Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s

Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13

Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21

Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22

Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10

Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15

Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15

Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2

Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4

Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54

Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17

Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28

Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17

Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35

Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2

Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46

Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13

Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20

Top

Mark

Mark 1:15 Tobit 14:5

Mark 4:5 Sirach 40:15

Mark 4:11 Wisdom 2:22

Mark 5:34 Judith 8:35

Mark 6:49 Wisdom 17:15

Mark 8:37 Sirach 26:14

Mark 9:31 Sirach 2:18

Mark 9:48 Judith 16:17

Mark 10:18 Sirach 4:1

Mark 14:34 Sirach 37:2

Mark 15:29 Wisdom 2:17s

Top

Luke

Luke 1:17 Sirach 48:10

Luke 1:19 Tobit 12:15

Luke 1:42 Judith 13:18

Luke 1:52 Sirach 10:14

Luke 2:29 Tobit 11:9

Luke 2:37 Judith 8:6

Luke 6:35 Wisdom 15:1

Luke 7:22 Sirach 48:5

Luke 9:8 Sirach 48:10

Luke 10:17 Tobit 7:17

Luke 10:19 Sirach 11:19

Luke 10:21 Sirach 51:1

Luke 12:19 Tobit 7:10

Luke 12:20 Wisdom 15:8

Luke 13:25 Tobit 14:4

Luke 13:27 1 Maccabees 3:6

Luke 13:29 Baruch 4:37

Luke 14:13 Tobit 2:2

Luke 15:12 1 Maccabees 10:29 [30]

Luke 15:12 Tobit 3:17

Luke 18:7 Sirach 35:22

Luke 19:44 Wisdom 3:7

Luke 21:24 Tobit 14:5

Luke 21:24 Sirach 28:18

Luke 21:25 Wisdom 5:22

Luke 24:4 2 Maccabees 3:26

Luke 24:31 2 Maccabees 3:34

Luke 24:50 Sirach 50:20s

Luke 24:53 Sirach 50:22

Top

John

John 1:3 Wisdom 9:1

John 3:8 Sirach 16:21

John 3:12 Wisdom 9:16

John 3:12 Wisdom 18:15s

John 3:13 Baruch 3:29

John 3:28 1 Maccabees 9:39

John 3:32 Tobit 4:6

John 4:9 Sirach 50:25s

John 4:48 Wisdom 8:8

John 5:18 Wisdom 2:16

John 6:35 Sirach 24:21

John 7:38 Sirach 24:40, 43[30s]

John 8:44 Wisdom 2:24

John 8:53 Sirach 44:19

John 10:20 Wisdom 5:4

John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59

John 14:15 Wisdom 6:18

John 15:9s Wisdom 3:9

John 17:3 Wisdom 15:3

John 20:22 Wisdom 15:11

Top

Acts

Acts 1:10 2 Maccabees 3:26

Acts 1:18 Wisdom 4:19

Acts 2:4 Sirach 48:12

Acts 2:11 Sirach 36:7

Acts 2:39 Sirach 24:32

Acts 4:24 Judith 9:12

Acts 5:2 2 Maccabees 4:32

Acts 5:12 1 Maccabees 12:6

Acts 5:21 2 Maccabees 1:10

Acts 5:39 2 Maccabees 7:19

Acts 9:1-29 2 Maccabees 3:24-40

Acts 9:2 1 Maccabees 15:21

Acts 9:7 Wisdom 18:1

Acts 10:2 Tobit 12:8

Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 10:25

Acts 10:22 1 Maccabees 11:30, 33 etc.

Acts 10:26 Wisdom 7:1

Acts 10:30 2 Maccabees 11:8

Acts 10:34 Sirach 35:12s

Acts 10:36 Wisdom 6:7

Acts 10:36 Wisdom 8:3 etc.

Acts 11:18 Wisdom 12:19

Acts 12:5 Judith 4:9

Acts 12:10 Sirach 19:26

Acts 12:23 Judith 16:17

Acts 12:23 Sirach 48:21

Acts 12:23 1 Maccabees 7:41

Acts 12:23 2 Maccabees 9:9

Acts 13:10 Sirach 1:30

Acts 13:17 Wisdom 19:10

Acts 14:14 Judith 14:16s

Acts 14:15 Wisdom 7:3

Acts 15:4 Judith 8:26

Acts 16:14 2 Maccabees 1:4

Acts 17:23 Wisdom 14:20

Acts 17:23 Wisdom 15:17

Acts 17:24, 25 Wisdom 9:1

Acts 17:24 Tobit 7:17

Acts 17:24 Wisdom 9:9

Acts 17:26 Wisdom 7:18

Acts 17:27 Wisdom 13:6

Acts 17:29 Wisdom 13:10

Acts 17:30 Sirach 28:7

Acts 19:27 Wisdom 3:17

Acts 19:28 Daniel 14:18, 41

Acts 20:26 Daniel 13:46

Acts 20:32 Wisdom 5:5

Acts 20:35 Sirach 4:31

Acts 21:26 1 Maccabees 3:49

Acts 22.9 Wisdom 18.1

Acts 24:2 2 Maccabees 4:6

Acts 26:18 Wisdom 5:5

Acts 26:25 Judith 10:13

[mustbenothing]

(Dave) John, I’d like to start off with some food for thought for you. You claim that God saves the elect "according to His good pleasure," yet you say He didn’t choose them based on a glance into the future, as in, He didn’t say, “Oh, I see John is going to believe in me eventually, so I’ll choose him.” Instead, you believe it’s the reverse – God chose you, and that’s why you eventually chose Him.

But the question is, on what basis did God pre-beaver dam the condemned? Of course, if I asked you how it’s fair that I should go to hell when I never had a choice, I bet you’d say it’s because I was born a sinner because of Adam’s sin, right? In other words, since I was born God’s enemy, it’s totally fair for God to condemn me, right?

(Me) This question has been the subject of debate in Protestant circles. Supralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from men as simply men, while infralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from the race of fallen men. Infralapsarianism is the majority report, so I tend to be sympathetic to it. However, I would have to ultimately say "No comment," because I'm not convinced that the Bible gives an obvious and clear answer.

(Dave) Besides, you seem to forget is that God is outside of time. There’s no such thing as true “pre”-destination in His sight – for God, there’s no “before” or “after;” it’s all “now.” So right now, God is choosing His elect at the same moment that His elect are choosing Him. Think of it in terms of a train – humans are the ones sitting on the road watching each train car go by one by one, but God is seeing it all at once, sort of like He’s up in a helicopter. Thus, it’s possible for God to predestine the elect and still respect free will – because it all happens at once for Him.

(Me) In regards to the temporal assertion, I'm just repeating Paul's words:

Ephes. 1:4

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In regards to the existence of predestination (which I would take to be anthropomorphism):

Ephes. 1:5

he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

The "it all happens at once" approach misunderstands the nature of God's relation to spatial-temporal happenings. For instance, it is obvious that the universe came into existence because of God's choice to cause it to come into existence. Such can be paralleled with the rest of God's decree.

(Dave) Now let’s deal with the issue of Romans 9:8-23. You claim that the passage indicates that God arbitrarily chooses, according to whatever pleases Him, which vessels He will create for honor, and which vessels He will create solely for the purpose of destruction. He is absolutely sovereign, and therefore, He has the right to make vessels that are fitted for destruction, and He does so to show His power, to prove that He can do as He pleases.

(Me) If by "arbitrary" you mean "on no basis of what they would do," then yes. If you mean "frivolously," then no.

(Dave) If God is a merciful God, then to randomly create some souls merely for damnation in order to demonstrate his sovereign power is, as Donna said, sick. If it’s God who hardens people’s hearts and then damns them, then how can that possibly jive with His being a just God? In response, you may direct me to Paul’s question "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"

(Me) I'm disgusted that you won't actually deal with the text, but would rather call Paul's doctrines "sick." Since you've made no interaction with the text, I'll say no more.

(Dave) Now, when I cited the Jeremiah 18:7-10 and said Paul was making reference to that passage, you gave a weak “I’m not convinced”-type argument that showed that you were reading your own biased interpretation into both passages.

(Me) I'm really getting sick of your arrogant, insulting attitude ("your own biased interpretation"). Heaven forbid that I came to read these passages as I do through long nights of careful study spent in tearful reflection!!

(Dave) However, you need to read Paul’s letters with the understanding that he never prooftexts the passages of the Old Testament, and so we must not either.

(Me) It's absurd to claim that Jeremiah 18 was a proof-text for Romans 9, because, if it were, he would have quoted it as such. Yet, he did not. Therefore, the best you can say is that he alluded to it. And, from the start, I've been more than willing to deal with that possibility.

(Dave) Like Paul, we must study harder to get a better understanding of the Old Testament texts so that we can fully grasp the contextual meaning of the citations. Paul, who was a zealous Pharisee and a brilliant scholar of the Law and the Prophets before his conversion, certainly knew the texts he was citing, and he selected them very carefully, in order to unfold their wider meaning.

But in those passages, he never explictly says, "It is written," or in any other way signals his readers that he is citing from the Old Testament, so what would give us any reason to pause and consider his meaning? Actually, he does signal us that he is citing from the Old Testament! The problem is that we aren't astute enough to recognize it right away, because we haven't studied the Old Testament like we should. However, to his Jewish readers, the words "potter" and "clay" would immediately alert them to the fact that he is quoting from none other than the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. Far from the meaning that Reformed Calvinists impose upon St. Paul's words, he is actually saying exactly the opposite, and his contextual message is loaded with significance for his Jewish readers. Read this very carefully and see if you can see what the First Century Jew would see:

"The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: Arise, and go down into the potter's house, and there thou shalt hear my words. And I went down into the potter's house, and behold he was doing a work on the wheel. And the vessel was broken which he was making of clay with his hands: and turning he made another vessel, as it seemed good in his eyes to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Cannot I do with you, as this potter, O house of Israel, saith the Lord? behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. I will suddenly speak against a nation, and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken, shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them. And I will suddenly speak of a nation and of a kingdom, to build up and plant it. If it shall do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice: I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto it. Now therefore tell the men of Juda, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying: Thus saith the Lord: Behold I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: let every man of you return from his evil way, and make ye your ways and your doings good. And they said; We have no hopes: for we will go after our own thoughts, and we will do every one according to the perverseness of his evil heart." (Jeremiah 18:1-12)

This is totally different from the meaning that Calvinists give to Paul’s words! Where they would say that God predetermines from the beginning which vessels He will set apart for destruction, the text actually says that God gives man time to repent and change his ways. In Jeremiah's vision, the potter (who is a figure of God) finds the clay (who is a figure of Israel first, and humanity second) difficult to work with, for it breaks the first time through the molding process. But the potter, far from saying, "This is a vessel which I have predestined to destruction," takes the clay and re-shapes it into something useful. God then says, in plain terms, "I may have plans to destroy you, but if you repent, then I will change my plans, and I may have plans for your prosperity, but if you do evil and are disobedient, then I will change those plans too." Far from being destined to hell, created for the very purpose of destruction, man has the choice to either repent and be saved, or remain stubborn, and be destroyed.

(Me) I don't see a single argument in here -- just assertion. I will be waiting for exegesis of the chapter in context. I'm also a little unimpressed that you haven't tried to deal with my exegesis.

(Dave) I know I’m skipping around, and I apologize, but to further understand Romans 9, let’s look at its context by starting at the very beginning of the chapter. Please remember the general theme of Romans, that is, that Paul wishes to establish, 1) that the Jewish Law no longer set Israel apart as God's "only beloved," leaving the Gentiles with no hope, and 2) that God's inclusion of the Gentiles in the plan of salvation by faith, while the majority of Jews continue to miss the mark by trying to obligate God with works of their own doing, does not amount to His rejecting His chosen people. He seeks to show that God's dealings with His people have not changed throughout their history, and that men have been always declared righteous by God, not for relying on their own strength and mighty works, but by humbling themselves and obeying God by faith. With that in mind, we turn to Romans 9:

"I speak the truth in Christ: I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: That I have great sadness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren: who are my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites: to whom belongeth the adoption as of children and the glory and the testament and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises: Whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:1-5)

Paul's use of the phrase, "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren," echoes back to Moses, who used those very same words of himself:

"And returning to the Lord, he said: I beseech thee: this people hath sinned a heinous sin, and they have made to themselves gods of gold: either forgive them this trespass, Or if thou do not, strike me out of the book that thou hast written." (Exodus 32:31-32)

The context of this citation is, of course, the "heinous sin" of the Golden Calf, in which Israel utterly rejected God and His chosen mediator, Moses, by making a false god out of gold and saying, "These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." (Exodus 32:4) Why does Paul cite from this passage? Most likely he is drawing to the attention of his opponents (the Judaizers) that he has become a second Moses for them, because the sin of the people in Moses' day is much like the sin of the people in St. Paul's day. Namely, Israel in Moses' day rejected God and His mediator, much like the Jews in St. Paul's day had only recently rejected God and His mediator, Jesus, by handing him over to the Romans for crucifixion.

The sin of the Golden Calf triggered a period of 40 years wherein God punished the people, in the hopes that they would repent of their sin and turn back to God. The sin of the Jews in St. Paul's day also triggered a penitential period of 40 years, in which God gave the Jews a generation's time to repent before Rome finally descended upon Jerusalem (in 70 AD) to destroy it. Jesus himself spoke of this:

"And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. And he answering, said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed... And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass: but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And there shall be pestilences and famines and earthquakes in places... Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake... And many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold... Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains... For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be... For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect... Amen I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done." (Matthew 24:1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16, 21, 24, 34)

All of this is in the forefront of Paul's mind, as he tries desperately to make his fellow Jews understand how similar their situation is to the events surrounding the Israelites in the Exodus, and as he pleads with them to repent while there is still time.

"Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed. For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come. And Sara shall have a son." (Romans 9:6-9)

Paul here anticipates the objection of his opponents: if God promised great blessings to the Jewish people through their forefather, Abraham, yet now there is a great possibility of their nation being judged and destroyed for rejecting and crucifying Christ, then God has lied. But no, says Paul, because "Israelites" are not restricted to those who are merely biologically Israelites, and the "children of Abraham" are not restricted to those who are biologically descended from Abraham. St. Paul hammers this point home by citing from Genesis again:

"And when Sara had seen the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, playing with Isaac, her son, she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. Abraham took this grievously for his son. And God said to him: Let it not seem grievous to thee for the boy, and for thy bondwoman: in all that Sara hath said to thee, hearken to her voice: for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Genesis 21:9-12)

This is a masterful stroke on the part of Paul, for the event that provides the context of the verse he cites is the expulsion of Ishmael. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. One was the child of promise, and one was the child of the flesh. Ishmael was born as the result of Abraham taking Divine matters into his own hands, when he slept with Sara's maidservant, Hagar. This was not the child that God had promised Abraham, and thus, Ishmael remained a son of Abraham merely by natural descent. Isaac, on the other hand, was born as the result of a miraculous act of God, who revived Sara's "dead womb" so that she could bear Abraham a son. Thus, Isaac is both a natural son of Abraham and a supernatural son of the promise. In essence, Paul is saying, "Look, you think you're something special because you are biological sons of Abraham? Well, so was Ishmael, and he was disinherited." The conclusion of this argument, according to Paul, is clear: "Not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed."

(Me) While a lot of this is excellent (and, more or less, what I suggested earlier), you didn't underscore the importance of verse 6:

Romans 9:6

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

The implication, then, is that the real Israel will all be saved, as the word of God promises. Obviously, the "children of the promise" later mentioned would be those included in this Israel.

(Dave) Then Paul draws a distinction between the firstborn son (in this case, Ishmael), and the younger son (in this case, Isaac):

"And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand): Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:10-13)

Paul continues to develop his firstborn/secondborn distinction, this time referring to Esau (the older son) and Jacob (the younger son). An important concept is introduced here, something that also rebounds back to his previous example of Isaac and Ishmael: not of works, but of Him that calleth. Both Ishmael and Esau were firstborn sons, who, according to natural biology, would have been bigger, stronger, able to work harder. But God is not interested in the strength of our flesh, for the bigger and stronger we are on our own, the less likely we are to see our need for His life in us, and the more likely we are to become proud and boastful. Thus it is that both Isaac and Jacob, younger, weaker sons, are chosen by God to be blessed and to continue the genealogical line of God's promise (which ultimately ends in the birth of Christ). Paul has not yet snapped shut the trap that he is setting here, but in just a few verses, he will do just that.

What about that phrase, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated?" I talked about that in my last post, but I’d like to flesh it out even more. This citation, oddly enough, is not from Genesis, and does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau, but rather, to the nations which descended from those two men. This, then, is the passage that Paul utilizes:

"I have loved you, saith the Lord: and you have said: Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau brother to Jacob, saith the Lord, and I have loved Jacob, But have hated Esau? and I have made his mountains a wilderness, and given his inheritance to the dragons of the desert. But if Edom shall say: We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed: thus saith the Lord of hosts: They shall build up, and I will throw down: and they shall be called the borders of wickedness, and the people with whom the Lord is angry for ever." (Malachi 1:2-4)

In this passage, God speaks of how he opposes the proud attitudes and works of Edom, which is the nation that descended from Esau. They do not receive the Lord's correction, for when He punishes them, they only determine all the more to overcome Him, saying, "We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed." Once again, Paul shows how God deals with those who are prideful and who boast in their own works, who build up their kingdoms and cities by their own strength, instead of relying on God. But there is more to this prophecy:

"To you, O priests, that despise my name, and have said: Wherein have we despised thy name? You offer polluted bread upon my altar, and you say: Wherein have we polluted thee? In that you say: The table of the Lord is contemptible. If you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if you offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil? offer it to thy prince, if he will be pleased with it, or if he will regard thy face, saith the Lord of hosts. And now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you, (for by your hand hath this been done,) if by any means he will receive your faces, saith the Lord of hosts. Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachi 1:7-11)

Paul is saying very many things when he cites from the opening verses of this chapter, none of which are lost on his Jewish readers. In addition to the message that God opposes the proud and boastful, there is also the reminder that, at the time of this prophecy, God was also opposing Israel, and the priests in particular. There is a call to repentance ("now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you"), and a prophecy that, one day, it will be the Gentiles who offer pure sacrifices to the Lord. All of these things are fraught with meaning for the Jews to whom Paul is writing. They have become proud, they have opposed God by murdering His Messiah, their priests were the ones leading the opposition against Jesus, and now, they need to repent, for the time has come, and now the Gentiles are being welcomed into the Covenant. This is, in essence, Paul's message: you, O Israel, have become like the Edomites you so despise.

But what are we to make of words, "Esau I have hated?" Doesn't the Scripture say that "God is love?" How can a God who is, in His very essence, love, say that He hates anyone? The trouble here is that we don't understand God's love, or His hate, and we can only interpret these words through our own weak, fleshly experiences. God, in fact, loves Edom just as He loves Israel, and it is because of His love that He opposes them. In other words, He loves them enough to desire that they repent and turn to Him, and the only way to do that is to oppose their wickedness. Any good parent will understand this. If your son or daughter wants to go out on a Friday night with some friends of ill-repute, your love for them and your desire for their safety causes you to oppose them, and you say, "I'm sorry, but I won't let you go." And what do they say? "Oh, Mom (or, "oh, Dad"), you hate me!" And it's true! You hate them (in the sense of opposing them) now, precisely because you love them. This is what Paul reveals about God in Romans 1:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice... Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves." (Romans 1:18, 24)

The wrath of God is shown when He lets us have our own way ("God gave them up to the desires of their heart"). His mercy is shown when He brings tragedy and calamity upon us, when He opposes our wicked desires by putting all manner of obstacles in our way, in the hopes that we will wake up and repent of our sin. This is the "hate" that God shows to Esau, and it is not based upon some arbitrary decision on the part of God, some passing fancy, wherein He decides, quite randomly to hate someone. Rather, it is based upon the actions of His children that He decides to either love them through "hate", by way of opposition and affliction, or to love them through mercy, by giving them prosperity and blessings.

(Me) The loved/hated thing is a Semitic idiom that probably just means that Jacob was favored over Esau. The modern implications of 'hate' are not in view.

You need to keep in mind the overall argument as laid out in verses 1-6. He is explaining how the true Israel has certainty of salvation, but not all of national Israel -- thus, many individuals in Israel are not saved. The two examples demonstrate that lineage is not the key, rather the promise is; again, lineage nor our actions are the key, rather the promise is. You've passed over "God's purpose in election," which causes serious problems for your exegesis. Paul explains that some national Israelites are not saved, but all true Israelites are saved, because of "the promise," because of "God's purpose in election." Individual election is Paul's solution to the problem presented through verse 5.

(Dave) "What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid! For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:14-16)

Paul again anticipates the argument of his opponents. If God is showing mercy to the other nations, yet He promised His blessings to Israel and they are in danger of being destroyed, then isn't God being unjust? Paul responds by referring to Exodus and to Moses again:

"And the Lord said to Moses: This word also, which thou hast spoken, will I do; for thou hast found grace before me, and thee I have known by name. And he said: Shew me thy glory. He answered: I will shew thee all good, and I will proclaim in the name of the Lord before thee: and I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me. And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me, and live. And again he said: Behold there is a place with me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. And when my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock, and protect thee with my righthand till I pass: And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face thou canst not see." (Exodus 33:17-23)

What is the context of this story, in which Moses is allowed to behold the glory of God? It occurs right after Israel's idolatry with the Golden Calf. St. Paul has not left behind his firstborn/secondborn motif, for in this example, is it Moses, the younger brother, who is shown God's favor, and not Aaron, the eldest brother. Why does God pass over Aaron and show His glory to Moses instead? Any good Jewish reader will know immediately that this story follows the story of the Golden Calf, and will remember that it was Aaron, the firstborn son, who led the people in their sin. It was Aaron who gathered the gold from the people and fashioned the Golden Calf, and it was he who organized the abominable liturgy of the Golden Calf, with all of its sacrifices, dancing, and sexual orgies. Thus, it is not to older, stronger, more powerful Aaron that God shows His glory, but to the younger, holier, more humble Moses.

Is God unjust? No, for He deals with us according to our obedience to Him, as is shown to be the case with Moses and Aaron. In referring to this episode from Exodus, Paul springs the trap he has been preparing for the past few verses. He has given three examples in which the firstborn son is passed over in favor of the younger son, in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, in the case of Jacob and Esau, and in the case of Moses and Aaron. What significance does this have for the Jews to whom St. Paul is speaking? His reference to Israel and the Golden Calf makes it clear, for it recalls what God said of Israel at the inception of the Exodus:

"And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me, and thou wouldst not let him go: behold I will kill thy son, thy firstborn." (Exodus 4:22-23)

The judgment that Paul makes against the Jews to whom he is writing is now out in the open: just like Ishmael, just like Esau, and just like Aaron, Israel is the firstborn son. Yet, as Paul just reminded them by referring to the Golden Calf, Israel has shown themselves to be a proud, stubborn, and rebellious firstborn son, and thus, as has been the case for the Patriarchs all through their history, their firstborn sonship will be the grounds on which they are condemned, if they do not repent. God will pass over them and favor the younger nations of the Gentiles, for Israel is unrepentant. This is the force ofPaul's words, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) God does not favor those with the strongest will, those who can run the fastest, those who are the biggest and strongest. Rather, He favors those who are humble, and who, like Moses, embrace their weakness enough to ask God, "Show me Thy glory."

(Me) The emphasis of verse 16 is on God unilaterally having mercy. No mention is made of being humble; and, inDouche, such a basis is opposed, for being humble is running or willing.

(Dave) "For the scripture saith to Pharaoh: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will. And whom he will, he hardeneth." (Romans 9:17-18)

Again, God does not arbitrarily predestine certain souls to eternal damnation, nor does He choose on a whim that He will hate certain people, and love others. Rather, He deals with men according to their obedience, as is shown in the case of Pharaoh. Does this passage mean that God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart, that He looked down from heaven and said, "That old Pharaoh, I'm afraid he might actually obey me and let my people go, but I want to show the world my power, so I'm going to keep him from doing the right thing?" Absolutely not!

"Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 7:2-3)

"And Pharaoh seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded." (Exodus 8:15)

So which one is it? Did God harden Pharaoh's heart, or did Pharaoh harden his own heart? Both! God does not show His wrath by actively hardening the heart of Man, so that he can not repent, even if he wanted to. No, God shows His wrath, as we saw in Romans 1:18 and following, by simply letting Man have his own way. He gives His grace only to those who humble themselves and ask for it, but to those who would rather live their lives without God, His punishment is that He does not force Himself upon them. So, in other words, Pharaoh (another firstborn, by the way) had placed his trust in himself, and in his power to establish his own kingdom, and refused to acknowledge the power and sovereign rights of God, and so God says, in effect, "You don't want me? Fine, you won't get me." Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and God "blessed" Pharaoh's decision. However, because He knows the state of Pharaoh's heart, and the extent of Pharaoh's foolish pride, He chooses to use Pharaoh as an example to the Israelites (and ultimately, to the world) of what happens when you are proud, boastful, and unwilling to humble yourself before God: you ultimately lose everything, even the temporal blessings you once enjoyed.

(Me) With the active/passive thing, you're mostly arguing against hyper-Calvinism, which is not really Calvinism at all. The reference to Romans 1:18 is the same kind of argument such famous modern Calvinists as RC Sproul use.

However, you're ignoring the force of "for this very purpose I have raised you up." In other words, God purposed against Pharoah. Paul thereby vindicates his claim that God can be just in choosing for some and against others.

(Dave) This becomes Paul's warning to and accusation against his Jewish readers. He says to them, you have these precepts written into your very own history, and so you ought to know what becomes of those who harden their hearts against God, those who reject God's mediator. He points out to the Judaizers that the Jewish people have, almost unbelievably, reached the full measure of wickedness, for they who were once God's firstborn son have become like Egypt, their worst enemy. This is nothing new for Paul, however, for both Jesus and John both said the exact same thing:

"Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt. 19:6-8)

"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the abyss shall make war against them and shall overcome them and kill them. And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt: where their Lord also was crucified." (Rev. 1:7-8)

In the first passage, Jesus describes the condition of the Israelites in Moses' time the same way God describes the condition of Pharaoh: hardness of heart. John says that the "great city" where the "Lord also was crucified," that is, Jerusalem, has become "Sodom and Egypt." A more damning sentence could hardly be pronounced against them. So we see that St. Paul is merely saying something that was well known to the Christians, that is, that Israel had become like Egypt, and just as Sodom and Egypt were judged with destruction by God, so Jerusalem will soon be handed over to the scourge of the Roman Armies.

(Me) "You ought to know what becomes of those who harden their hearts against God, those who reject God's mediator" -- this isn't following the textual claim, which is that God raised Pharoah up for a purpose -- not that God is justified in condemning the unrepentant.

(Dave) "Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will? 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? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?" (Romans 9:19-23)

Now, on to something else . . . Consider Isaiah 53:6: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Of course, the “him” refers to Jesus Christ – it’s a major Messianic prophecy. Well, if you go in at the door of the first "all," you have to be able to come out the door of the last "all"! So if "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" only means "the elect," then guess what? "All we like sheep have gone astray" only means "the elect" too!

(Me) Isaiah 53 has the elect primarily in mind. The fact that it is talking about the elect's depravity and salvation does not mean that there is no depravity for the unelect.

And, inDouche, we must wondered how the elect were prepared for glory if they were not prechosen! We must also wonder how this allows a vessel of wrath to become a vessel of mercy -- Pharoah, Esau, and Ishmael were certainly unable to do so.

(Dave) I’m not going to discuss every single solitary thing that was brought up in my previous post. Why? Because there were a lot of Bible verses I cited that you tried to object to, and since you’ve decided to read your own interpretation into those passages, going around and around with them won’t get us anywhere. However, as for some of the other things we discussed, allow me to bring up 1 Timothy 2:4. I cited 1 Timothy 2:4, where it says that God “wills EVERYONE to come to the knowledge of the truth.” You said that judging from earlier in the chapter, Paul has in mind all types of people -- "kings and those in authority" and lowly peasants, male and female, Jews and Gentiles. Well, first of all, that particular verse doesn’t refer to all types of people. The text plainly says all men, and yet you seem to want to change the wording to say “all kinds of men!” Those are 2 totally different propositions. The Greek word for “kind” is “genos,” but that is not used in 1 Timothy 2:4. Everyone is everyone, yet you seem desperate to prove otherwise in order to salvage your belief system!

(Me) "All kinds" is well within the semantic range of pas ("all").

(Dave) As for this passage:

John 10:26

26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

You missed the point of what I was saying. Jesus said that the people in question didn’t believe because they weren’t part of His flock. In light of what I’ve discussed earlier in this passage, they CHOSE not to be part of His flock. They could’ve freely chosen to be part of it, but instead they freely chose not to.

(Me) No, because the passage says that His sheep come to Him, that He gathers the sheep from all over unto Him. This presupposes that many sheep have not already come.

"They CHOSE not to be part of His flock" -- you're not looking at the force of the assertion. They do not believe -- that is, they do not repent or come to Him -- because they are not sheep. You say that they become sheep by repenting or coming to Him. Thus, it would be, "You do not believe because you do not believe." This is obviously absurd.

(Dave) As for these passages:

Romans 11:5-8

5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

8 just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day."

Jude 1:4

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 2:8

and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

You said I didn’t deal with the above passages, but I did! Here’s what I wrote: “[W]ith regard to Paul’s words about God "hardening" people, giving them a "spirit of stupor," being "marked out for condemnation" or "appointed to doom," all according to His will, the answer is really quite simple. First, Paul has already told us who God "hardens" in Romans 1:25-28: "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. . . . And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” I discuss it more in-depth earlier in this post.

(Me) Yes, you said that, but it in no way deals with the question of reprobation!!! These texts teach clearly that many individuals are predestined for damnation. Romans 1 gives us an idea of how that happens: their hearts are hard and wicked, so God gives them over to those wicked desires.

[mustbenothing]

I am not compelled to respond to an article not written by a member of this board, especially since it didn't address the argument I raised.

[Dave]

(Dave) John, I’d like to start off with some food for thought for you. You claim that God saves the elect "according to His good pleasure," yet you say He didn’t choose them based on a glance into the future, as in, He didn’t say, “Oh, I see John is going to believe in me eventually, so I’ll choose him.” Instead, you believe it’s the reverse – God chose you, and that’s why you eventually chose Him.

But the question is, on what basis did God pre-beaver dam the condemned? Of course, if I asked you how it’s fair that I should go to hell when I never had a choice, I bet you’d say it’s because I was born a sinner because of Adam’s sin, right? In other words, since I was born God’s enemy, it’s totally fair for God to condemn me, right?

(Me) This question has been the subject of debate in Protestant circles. Supralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from men as simply men, while infralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from the race of fallen men. Infralapsarianism is the majority report, so I tend to be sympathetic to it. However, I would have to ultimately say "No comment," because I'm not convinced that the Bible gives an obvious and clear answer.

A non-answer.

(Dave) Besides, you seem to forget is that God is outside of time. There’s no such thing as true "pre"-destination in His sight – for God, there's no "before" or "after;" it’s all "now." So right now, God is choosing His elect at the same moment that His elect are choosing Him. Think of it in terms of a train – humans are the ones sitting on the road watching each train car go by one by one, but God is seeing it all at once, sort of like He’s up in a helicopter. Thus, it's possible for God to predestine the elect and still respect free will – because it all happens at once for Him.

(Me) In regards to the temporal assertion, I'm just repeating Paul's words:

Ephes. 1:4

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In regards to the existence of predestination (which I would take to be anthropomorphism):

Ephes. 1:5

he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

The "it all happens at once" approach misunderstands the nature of God's relation to spatial-temporal happenings. For instance, it is obvious that the universe came into existence because of God's choice to cause it to come into existence. Such can be paralleled with the rest of God's decree.

Another non-answer. None of those passages explain how God can choose and yet respect free will.

(Dave) Now let’s deal with the issue of Romans 9:8-23. You claim that the passage indicates that God arbitrarily chooses, according to whatever pleases Him, which vessels He will create for honor, and which vessels He will create solely for the purpose of destruction. He is absolutely sovereign, and therefore, He has the right to make vessels that are fitted for destruction, and He does so to show His power, to prove that He can do as He pleases.

(Me) If by "arbitrary" you mean "on no basis of what they would do," then yes. If you mean "frivolously," then no.

I mean as "on no basis of what they would do."

(Dave) If God is a merciful God, then to randomly create some souls merely for damnation in order to demonstrate his sovereign power is, as Donna said, sick. If it’s God who hardens people’s hearts and then damns them, then how can that possibly jive with His being a just God? In response, you may direct me to Paul’s question "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"

(Me) I'm disgusted that you won't actually deal with the text, but would rather call Paul's doctrines "sick." Since you've made no interaction with the text, I'll say no more.

No, once again, it's YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF PAUL'S DOCTRINES. I talk about the text from Romans later in the post . . . if you read them, that is.

(Dave) Now, when I cited the Jeremiah 18:7-10 and said Paul was making reference to that passage, you gave a weak “I’m not convinced”-type argument that showed that you were reading your own biased interpretation into both passages.

(Me) I'm really getting sick of your arrogant, insulting attitude ("your own biased interpretation"). Heaven forbid that I came to read these passages as I do through long nights of careful study spent in tearful reflection!!

All I'm telling is the truth. If you didn't want to hear it, then maybe you shouldn't have responded. In addition, I've found your attitude nothing less than arrogant and insulting -- ignoring what we say and then accusing us of not proving anything. And as for all that study and "tearful" reflection you did, how do you know the conclusions you arrived at were true?

(Dave) However, you need to read Paul’s letters with the understanding that he never prooftexts the passages of the Old Testament, and so we must not either.

(Me) It's absurd to claim that Jeremiah 18 was a proof-text for Romans 9, because, if it were, he would have quoted it as such. Yet, he did not. Therefore, the best you can say is that he alluded to it. And, from the start, I've been more than willing to deal with that possibility.

How can you claim to know what Paul would or wouldn't have done?

(Dave) Like Paul, we must study harder to get a better understanding of the Old Testament texts so that we can fully grasp the contextual meaning of the citations. Paul, who was a zealous Pharisee and a brilliant scholar of the Law and the Prophets before his conversion, certainly knew the texts he was citing, and he selected them very carefully, in order to unfold their wider meaning.

But in those passages, he never explictly says, "It is written," or in any other way signals his readers that he is citing from the Old Testament, so what would give us any reason to pause and consider his meaning? Actually, he does signal us that he is citing from the Old Testament! The problem is that we aren't astute enough to recognize it right away, because we haven't studied the Old Testament like we should. However, to his Jewish readers, the words "potter" and "clay" would immediately alert them to the fact that he is quoting from none other than the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. Far from the meaning that Reformed Calvinists impose upon St. Paul's words, he is actually saying exactly the opposite, and his contextual message is loaded with significance for his Jewish readers.

Read this very carefully and see if you can see what the First Century Jew would see:

"The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: Arise, and go down into the potter's house, and there thou shalt hear my words. And I went down into the potter's house, and behold he was doing a work on the wheel. And the vessel was broken which he was making of clay with his hands: and turning he made another vessel, as it seemed good in his eyes to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Cannot I do with you, as this potter, O house of Israel, saith the Lord? behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. I will suddenly speak against a nation, and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken, shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them. And I will suddenly speak of a nation and of a kingdom, to build up and plant it. If it shall do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice: I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto it. Now therefore tell the men of Juda, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying: Thus saith the Lord: Behold I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: let every man of you return from his evil way, and make ye your ways and your doings good. And they said; We have no hopes: for we will go after our own thoughts, and we will do every one according to the perverseness of his evil heart." (Jeremiah 18:1-12)

This is totally different from the meaning that Calvinists give to Paul’s words! Where they would say that God predetermines from the beginning which vessels He will set apart for destruction, the text actually says that God gives man time to repent and change his ways. In Jeremiah's vision, the potter (who is a figure of God) finds the clay (who is a figure of Israel first, and humanity second) difficult to work with, for it breaks the first time through the molding process. But the potter, far from saying, "This is a vessel which I have predestined to destruction," takes the clay and re-shapes it into something useful. God then says, in plain terms, "I may have plans to destroy you, but if you repent, then I will change my plans, and I may have plans for your prosperity, but if you do evil and are disobedient, then I will change those plans too." Far from being destined to hell, created for the very purpose of destruction, man has the choice to either repent and be saved, or remain stubborn, and be destroyed.

(Me) I don't see a single argument in here -- just assertion. I will be waiting for exegesis of the chapter in context. I'm also a little unimpressed that you haven't tried to deal with my exegesis.

There was exegesis galore, and you know it. You're just ignoring what I wrote, probably fearing that if you read it, it might actually make sense. And I HAVE dealt with your exegesis, but you just don't want to see it. And yet you call me arrogant?

(Dave) I know I’m skipping around, and I apologize, but to further understand Romans 9, let’s look at its context by starting at the very beginning of the chapter. Please remember the general theme of Romans, that is, that Paul wishes to establish, 1) that the Jewish Law no longer set Israel apart as God's "only beloved," leaving the Gentiles with no hope, and 2) that God's inclusion of the Gentiles in the plan of salvation by faith, while the majority of Jews continue to miss the mark by trying to obligate God with works of their own doing, does not amount to His rejecting His chosen people. He seeks to show that God's dealings with His people have not changed throughout their history, and that men have been always declared righteous by God, not for relying on their own strength and mighty works, but by humbling themselves and obeying God by faith. With that in mind, we turn to Romans 9:

"I speak the truth in Christ: I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: That I have great sadness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren: who are my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites: to whom belongeth the adoption as of children and the glory and the testament and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises: Whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:1-5)

Paul's use of the phrase, "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren," echoes back to Moses, who used those very same words of himself:

"And returning to the Lord, he said: I beseech thee: this people hath sinned a heinous sin, and they have made to themselves gods of gold: either forgive them this trespass, Or if thou do not, strike me out of the book that thou hast written." (Exodus 32:31-32)

The context of this citation is, of course, the "heinous sin" of the Golden Calf, in which Israel utterly rejected God and His chosen mediator, Moses, by making a false god out of gold and saying, "These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." (Exodus 32:4) Why does Paul cite from this passage? Most likely he is drawing to the attention of his opponents (the Judaizers) that he has become a second Moses for them, because the sin of the people in Moses' day is much like the sin of the people in St. Paul's day. Namely, Israel in Moses' day rejected God and His mediator, much like the Jews in St. Paul's day had only recently rejected God and His mediator, Jesus, by handing him over to the Romans for crucifixion.

The sin of the Golden Calf triggered a period of 40 years wherein God punished the people, in the hopes that they would repent of their sin and turn back to God. The sin of the Jews in St. Paul's day also triggered a penitential period of 40 years, in which God gave the Jews a generation's time to repent before Rome finally descended upon Jerusalem (in 70 AD) to destroy it. Jesus himself spoke of this:

"And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. And he answering, said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed... And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass: but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And there shall be pestilences and famines and earthquakes in places... Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake... And many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold... Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains... For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be... For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect... Amen I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done." (Matthew 24:1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16, 21, 24, 34)

All of this is in the forefront of Paul's mind, as he tries desperately to make his fellow Jews understand how similar their situation is to the events surrounding the Israelites in the Exodus, and as he pleads with them to repent while there is still time.

"Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed. For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come. And Sara shall have a son." (Romans 9:6-9)

Paul here anticipates the objection of his opponents: if God promised great blessings to the Jewish people through their forefather, Abraham, yet now there is a great possibility of their nation being judged and destroyed for rejecting and crucifying Christ, then God has lied. But no, says Paul, because "Israelites" are not restricted to those who are merely biologically Israelites, and the "children of Abraham" are not restricted to those who are biologically descended from Abraham. St. Paul hammers this point home by citing from Genesis again:

"And when Sara had seen the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, playing with Isaac, her son, she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. Abraham took this grievously for his son. And God said to him: Let it not seem grievous to thee for the boy, and for thy bondwoman: in all that Sara hath said to thee, hearken to her voice: for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Genesis 21:9-12)

This is a masterful stroke on the part of Paul, for the event that provides the context of the verse he cites is the expulsion of Ishmael. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. One was the child of promise, and one was the child of the flesh. Ishmael was born as the result of Abraham taking Divine matters into his own hands, when he slept with Sara's maidservant, Hagar. This was not the child that God had promised Abraham, and thus, Ishmael remained a son of Abraham merely by natural descent. Isaac, on the other hand, was born as the result of a miraculous act of God, who revived Sara's "dead womb" so that she could bear Abraham a son. Thus, Isaac is both a natural son of Abraham and a supernatural son of the promise. In essence, Paul is saying, "Look, you think you're something special because you are biological sons of Abraham? Well, so was Ishmael, and he was disinherited." The conclusion of this argument, according to Paul, is clear: "Not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed."

(Me) While a lot of this is excellent (and, more or less, what I suggested earlier), you didn't underscore the importance of verse 6:

Romans 9:6

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

The implication, then, is that the real Israel will all be saved, as the word of God promises. Obviously, the "children of the promise" later mentioned would be those included in this Israel.

Oh, so you agree with me? Romans 9:6 doesn't change the case I presented in the least.

(Dave) Then Paul draws a distinction between the firstborn son (in this case, Ishmael), and the younger son (in this case, Isaac):

"And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand): Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:10-13)

Paul continues to develop his firstborn/secondborn distinction, this time referring to Esau (the older son) and Jacob (the younger son). An important concept is introduced here, something that also rebounds back to his previous example of Isaac and Ishmael: not of works, but of Him that calleth. Both Ishmael and Esau were firstborn sons, who, according to natural biology, would have been bigger, stronger, able to work harder. But God is not interested in the strength of our flesh, for the bigger and stronger we are on our own, the less likely we are to see our need for His life in us, and the more likely we are to become proud and boastful. Thus it is that both Isaac and Jacob, younger, weaker sons, are chosen by God to be blessed and to continue the genealogical line of God's promise (which ultimately ends in the birth of Christ). Paul has not yet snapped shut the trap that he is setting here, but in just a few verses, he will do just that.

What about that phrase, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated?" I talked about that in my last post, but I’d like to flesh it out even more. This citation, oddly enough, is not from Genesis, and does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau, but rather, to the nations which descended from those two men. This, then, is the passage that Paul utilizes:

"I have loved you, saith the Lord: and you have said: Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau brother to Jacob, saith the Lord, and I have loved Jacob, But have hated Esau? and I have made his mountains a wilderness, and given his inheritance to the dragons of the desert. But if Edom shall say: We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed: thus saith the Lord of hosts: They shall build up, and I will throw down: and they shall be called the borders of wickedness, and the people with whom the Lord is angry for ever." (Malachi 1:2-4)

In this passage, God speaks of how he opposes the proud attitudes and works of Edom, which is the nation that descended from Esau. They do not receive the Lord's correction, for when He punishes them, they only determine all the more to overcome Him, saying, "We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed." Once again, Paul shows how God deals with those who are prideful and who boast in their own works, who build up their kingdoms and cities by their own strength, instead of relying on God. But there is more to this prophecy:

"To you, O priests, that despise my name, and have said: Wherein have we despised thy name? You offer polluted bread upon my altar, and you say: Wherein have we polluted thee? In that you say: The table of the Lord is contemptible. If you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if you offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil? offer it to thy prince, if he will be pleased with it, or if he will regard thy face, saith the Lord of hosts. And now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you, (for by your hand hath this been done,) if by any means he will receive your faces, saith the Lord of hosts. Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachi 1:7-11)

Paul is saying very many things when he cites from the opening verses of this chapter, none of which are lost on his Jewish readers. In addition to the message that God opposes the proud and boastful, there is also the reminder that, at the time of this prophecy, God was also opposing Israel, and the priests in particular. There is a call to repentance ("now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you"), and a prophecy that, one day, it will be the Gentiles who offer pure sacrifices to the Lord. All of these things are fraught with meaning for the Jews to whom Paul is writing. They have become proud, they have opposed God by murdering His Messiah, their priests were the ones leading the opposition against Jesus, and now, they need to repent, for the time has come, and now the Gentiles are being welcomed into the Covenant. This is, in essence, Paul's message: you, O Israel, have become like the Edomites you so despise.

But what are we to make of words, "Esau I have hated?" Doesn't the Scripture say that "God is love?" How can a God who is, in His very essence, love, say that He hates anyone? The trouble here is that we don't understand God's love, or His hate, and we can only interpret these words through our own weak, fleshly experiences. God, in fact, loves Edom just as He loves Israel, and it is because of His love that He opposes them. In other words, He loves them enough to desire that they repent and turn to Him, and the only way to do that is to oppose their wickedness. Any good parent will understand this. If your son or daughter wants to go out on a Friday night with some friends of ill-repute, your love for them and your desire for their safety causes you to oppose them, and you say, "I'm sorry, but I won't let you go." And what do they say? "Oh, Mom (or, "oh, Dad"), you hate me!" And it's true! You hate them (in the sense of opposing them) now, precisely because you love them. This is what Paul reveals about God in Romans 1:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice... Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves." (Romans 1:18, 24)

The wrath of God is shown when He lets us have our own way ("God gave them up to the desires of their heart"). His mercy is shown when He brings tragedy and calamity upon us, when He opposes our wicked desires by putting all manner of obstacles in our way, in the hopes that we will wake up and repent of our sin. This is the "hate" that God shows to Esau, and it is not based upon some arbitrary decision on the part of God, some passing fancy, wherein He decides, quite randomly to hate someone. Rather, it is based upon the actions of His children that He decides to either love them through "hate", by way of opposition and affliction, or to love them through mercy, by giving them prosperity and blessings.

(Me) The loved/hated thing is a Semitic idiom that probably just means that Jacob was favored over Esau. The modern implications of 'hate' are not in view.

You need to keep in mind the overall argument as laid out in verses 1-6. He is explaining how the true Israel has certainty of salvation, but not all of national Israel -- thus, many individuals in Israel are not saved. The two examples demonstrate that lineage is not the key, rather the promise is; again, lineage nor our actions are the key, rather the promise is. You've passed over "God's purpose in election," which causes serious problems for your exegesis. Paul explains that some national Israelites are not saved, but all true Israelites are saved, because of "the promise," because of "God's purpose in election." Individual election is Paul's solution to the problem presented through verse 5.

Still more reading your own interpretation into things. You can't just take a passage and build a doctrine around it; you have to interpret it in the light of the rest of Scripture! AAARRRGGGHHH!!! For goodness' sake, read what I write -- all of it -- the whole post! You said actions don't make a difference, but I've just shown that they most certainly do -- God's purpose in election is made clear in that Israel has chosen not to believe. The passage makes that perfectly clear. Again, reread what I wrote, and do it carefully!

(Dave) "What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid! For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:14-16)

Paul again anticipates the argument of his opponents. If God is showing mercy to the other nations, yet He promised His blessings to Israel and they are in danger of being destroyed, then isn't God being unjust? Paul responds by referring to Exodus and to Moses again:

"And the Lord said to Moses: This word also, which thou hast spoken, will I do; for thou hast found grace before me, and thee I have known by name. And he said: Shew me thy glory. He answered: I will shew thee all good, and I will proclaim in the name of the Lord before thee: and I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me. And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me, and live. And again he said: Behold there is a place with me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. And when my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock, and protect thee with my righthand till I pass: And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face thou canst not see." (Exodus 33:17-23)

What is the context of this story, in which Moses is allowed to behold the glory of God? It occurs right after Israel's idolatry with the Golden Calf. St. Paul has not left behind his firstborn/secondborn motif, for in this example, is it Moses, the younger brother, who is shown God's favor, and not Aaron, the eldest brother. Why does God pass over Aaron and show His glory to Moses instead? Any good Jewish reader will know immediately that this story follows the story of the Golden Calf, and will remember that it was Aaron, the firstborn son, who led the people in their sin. It was Aaron who gathered the gold from the people and fashioned the Golden Calf, and it was he who organized the abominable liturgy of the Golden Calf, with all of its sacrifices, dancing, and sexual orgies. Thus, it is not to older, stronger, more powerful Aaron that God shows His glory, but to the younger, holier, more humble Moses.

Is God unjust? No, for He deals with us according to our obedience to Him, as is shown to be the case with Moses and Aaron. In referring to this episode from Exodus, Paul springs the trap he has been preparing for the past few verses. He has given three examples in which the firstborn son is passed over in favor of the younger son, in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, in the case of Jacob and Esau, and in the case of Moses and Aaron. What significance does this have for the Jews to whom St. Paul is speaking? His reference to Israel and the Golden Calf makes it clear, for it recalls what God said of Israel at the inception of the Exodus:

"And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me, and thou wouldst not let him go: behold I will kill thy son, thy firstborn." (Exodus 4:22-23)

The judgment that Paul makes against the Jews to whom he is writing is now out in the open: just like Ishmael, just like Esau, and just like Aaron, Israel is the firstborn son. Yet, as Paul just reminded them by referring to the Golden Calf, Israel has shown themselves to be a proud, stubborn, and rebellious firstborn son, and thus, as has been the case for the Patriarchs all through their history, their firstborn sonship will be the grounds on which they are condemned, if they do not repent. God will pass over them and favor the younger nations of the Gentiles, for Israel is unrepentant. This is the force of Paul's words, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) God does not favor those with the strongest will, those who can run the fastest, those who are the biggest and strongest. Rather, He favors those who are humble, and who, like Moses, embrace their weakness enough to ask God, "Show me Thy glory."

(Me) The emphasis of verse 16 is on God unilaterally having mercy. No mention is made of being humble; and, inDouche, such a basis is opposed, for being humble is running or willing.

Yet again, you put your own spin on things without giving proof for your interpretations. Yet another non-answer.

(Dave) "For the scripture saith to Pharaoh: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will. And whom he will, he hardeneth." (Romans 9:17-18)

Again, God does not arbitrarily predestine certain souls to eternal damnation, nor does He choose on a whim that He will hate certain people, and love others. Rather, He deals with men according to their obedience, as is shown in the case of Pharaoh. Does this passage mean that God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart, that He looked down from heaven and said, "That old Pharaoh, I'm afraid he might actually obey me and let my people go, but I want to show the world my power, so I'm going to keep him from doing the right thing?" Absolutely not!

"Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 7:2-3)

"And Pharaoh seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded." (Exodus 8:15)

So which one is it? Did God harden Pharaoh's heart, or did Pharaoh harden his own heart? Both! God does not show His wrath by actively hardening the heart of Man, so that he can not repent, even if he wanted to. No, God shows His wrath, as we saw in Romans 1:18 and following, by simply letting Man have his own way. He gives His grace only to those who humble themselves and ask for it, but to those who would rather live their lives without God, His punishment is that He does not force Himself upon them. So, in other words, Pharaoh (another firstborn, by the way) had placed his trust in himself, and in his power to establish his own kingdom, and refused to acknowledge the power and sovereign rights of God, and so God says, in effect, "You don't want me? Fine, you won't get me." Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and God "blessed" Pharaoh's decision. However, because He knows the state of Pharaoh's heart, and the extent of Pharaoh's foolish pride, He chooses to use Pharaoh as an example to the Israelites (and ultimately, to the world) of what happens when you are proud, boastful, and unwilling to humble yourself before God: you ultimately lose everything, even the temporal blessings you once enjoyed.

(Me) With the active/passive thing, you're mostly arguing against hyper-Calvinism, which is not really Calvinism at all. The reference to Romans 1:18 is the same kind of argument such famous modern Calvinists as RC Sproul use.

However, you're ignoring the force of "for this very purpose I have raised you up." In other words, God purposed against Pharoah. Paul thereby vindicates his claim that God can be just in choosing for some and against others.

I've proven that this is not the case. Yet again, you ignore what I say and put your own spin on things.

(Dave) This becomes Paul's warning to and accusation against his Jewish readers. He says to them, you have these precepts written into your very own history, and so you ought to know what becomes of those who harden their hearts against God, those who reject God's mediator. He points out to the Judaizers that the Jewish people have, almost unbelievably, reached the full measure of wickedness, for they who were once God's firstborn son have become like Egypt, their worst enemy. This is nothing new for Paul, however, for both Jesus and John both said the exact same thing:

"Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt. 19:6-8)

"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the abyss shall make war against them and shall overcome them and kill them. And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt: where their Lord also was crucified." (Rev. 1:7-8)

In the first passage, Jesus describes the condition of the Israelites in Moses' time the same way God describes the condition of Pharaoh: hardness of heart. John says that the "great city" where the "Lord also was crucified," that is, Jerusalem, has become "Sodom and Egypt." A more damning sentence could hardly be pronounced against them. So we see that St. Paul is merely saying something that was well known to the Christians, that is, that Israel had become like Egypt, and just as Sodom and Egypt were judged with destruction by God, so Jerusalem will soon be handed over to the scourge of the Roman Armies.

(Me) "You ought to know what becomes of those who harden their hearts against God, those who reject God's mediator" -- this isn't following the textual claim, which is that God raised Pharoah up for a purpose -- not that God is justified in condemning the unrepentant.

More putting your own spin on things. What makes you so sure your interpretation is correct? Besides, I made it clear earlier that God ALLOWED his hardness of heart -- Pharaoh chose to do so, and God "blessed" his decision.

(Dave) "Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will? 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? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?" (Romans 9:19-23)

Now, on to something else . . . Consider Isaiah 53:6: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Of course, the “him” refers to Jesus Christ – it’s a major Messianic prophecy. Well, if you go in at the door of the first "all," you have to be able to come out the door of the last "all"! So if "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" only means "the elect," then guess what? "All we like sheep have gone astray" only means "the elect" too!

(Me) Isaiah 53 has the elect primarily in mind. The fact that it is talking about the elect's depravity and salvation does not mean that there is no depravity for the unelect.

And, inDouche, we must wondered how the elect were prepared for glory if they were not prechosen! We must also wonder how this allows a vessel of wrath to become a vessel of mercy -- Pharoah, Esau, and Ishmael were certainly unable to do so.

Why won't you read what I wrote originally? Are you scared what I say might actually make sense to you? Isaiah 53 was referring to EVERYONE -- no exceptions. You're making the text say something it doesn't say. And as for the elect being prepared for glory if they weren't pre-chosen, of course they're pre-chosen because God knows they won't resist His will. Pharaoh, Esau, and Ishmael were unable to do so because they, of their own free will, hardened their hearts against God, and as I said earlier, God "blessed" their decision. They remained vessels of wrath because they didn't wish to become vessels of mercy -- they resisted God's will to turn them into vessels of mercy, and God knew that all along.

(Dave) I’m not going to discuss every single solitary thing that was brought up in my previous post. Why? Because there were a lot of Bible verses I cited that you tried to object to, and since you’ve decided to read your own interpretation into those passages, going around and around with them won’t get us anywhere. However, as for some of the other things we discussed, allow me to bring up 1 Timothy 2:4. I cited 1 Timothy 2:4, where it says that God “wills EVERYONE to come to the knowledge of the truth.” You said that judging from earlier in the chapter, Paul has in mind all types of people -- "kings and those in authority" and lowly peasants, male and female, Jews and Gentiles. Well, first of all, that particular verse doesn’t refer to all types of people. The text plainly says all men, and yet you seem to want to change the wording to say “all kinds of men!” Those are 2 totally different propositions. The Greek word for “kind” is “genos,” but that is not used in 1 Timothy 2:4. Everyone is everyone, yet you seem desperate to prove otherwise in order to salvage your belief system!

(Me) "All kinds" is well within the semantic range of pas ("all").

How do you know this? Proof?

(Dave) As for this passage:

John 10:26

26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

You missed the point of what I was saying. Jesus said that the people in question didn’t believe because they weren’t part of His flock. In light of what I’ve discussed earlier in this passage, they CHOSE not to be part of His flock. They could’ve freely chosen to be part of it, but instead they freely chose not to.

(Me) No, because the passage says that His sheep come to Him, that He gathers the sheep from all over unto Him. This presupposes that many sheep have not already come.

"They CHOSE not to be part of His flock" -- you're not looking at the force of the assertion. They do not believe -- that is, they do not repent or come to Him -- because they are not sheep. You say that they become sheep by repenting or coming to Him. Thus, it would be, "You do not believe because you do not believe." This is obviously absurd.

No, I'm not saying, "You do not believe because you do not believe." You're reading into my remarks things that just aren't there, as well as reading your own interpretation into things? Jesus knew their heart and knew they had no intention of believing or repenting, and as a result, they couldn't become sheep. But again, it was THEIR choice. It doesn't say that God made it so they didn't believe, and in light of what I wrote earlier in this thread, He would never do that, except in the sense of "blessing" their decision not to.

Dave) As for these passages:

Romans 11:5-8

5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

8 just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day."

Jude 1:4

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 2:8

and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

You said I didn’t deal with the above passages, but I did! Here’s what I wrote: “[W]ith regard to Paul’s words about God "hardening" people, giving them a "spirit of stupor," being "marked out for condemnation" or "appointed to doom," all according to His will, the answer is really quite simple. First, Paul has already told us who God "hardens" in Romans 1:25-28: "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. . . . And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” I discuss it more in-depth earlier in this post.

(Me) Yes, you said that, but it in no way deals with the question of reprobation!!! These texts teach clearly that many individuals are predestined for damnation. Romans 1 gives us an idea of how that happens: their hearts are hard and wicked, so God gives them over to those wicked desires.

Yes it does deal with the question of reprobation, but you've chosen to put on blinders and ear plugs. Reminds me of someone putting their fingers in their ears and going, "La la la la la la la la la . . . " when they don't want to hear what's being said. I have shown you earlier how your interpretation won't wash -- they allowed their hearts to be wicked, so God "blessed" their decision.

Please read what we have to say and think about it rather than ignore it. And the next time you come here, please be humble enough to admit you could be wrong rather than grasp at straws to salvage your sinking ship.

[Dave]

Also, John, as for the idea that the deuterocanonicals contradict the rest of scripture, that's like how atheists claim that there are discrepancies in the Bible.

As for the passage from Sirach you cite, remember in the New Testament (can't remember which book it's in, sorry), it says that love covers a multitude of sins. The passage means that the love shown in giving alms atones for sin. So there's no contradiction there. Besides, if there was a contradiction, why would God say, "It is mercy I desire, not sacrifice" (in the Psalms, I think)?

And your refusal to respond to what cmom wrote is a cop-out, and you know it.

[mustbenothing]

(Dave) Also, John, as for the idea that the deuterocanonicals contradict the rest of scripture, that's like how atheists claim that there are discrepancies in the Bible.

(Me) No, because I'm arguing on a much better exegetical basis, and I'm doing so in the effort of judging new documents' canonicity by old documents. Since they clearly contradict in an important matter, we should reject the supposedly new books of Scripture (new in relation to the rest of the OT, that is, as they were written later).

(Dave) As for the passage from Sirach you cite, remember in the New Testament (can't remember which book it's in, sorry), it says that love covers a multitude of sins. The passage means that the love shown in giving alms atones for sin. So there's no contradiction there. Besides, if there was a contradiction, why would God say, "It is mercy I desire, not sacrifice" (in the Psalms, I think)?

(Me) 1 Peter 4:8 uses 'Kalupto,' to hide or veil knowledge from. It means, then, that a person's love hides or veils knowledge of the beloved's sin. The Sirach quote, on the other hand, refers to actual atonement for sin, and says that it is accomplished for yourself by your alms-giving.

(Dave) And your refusal to respond to what cmom wrote is a cop-out, and you know it.

(Me) I responded to everything cmotherofpirl wrote. I responded to nothing James Akin wrote. If you expect me to argue with cut 'n' pasted articles, then I will expect you to argue with cut 'n' pasted articles, and I'll just go download a glut of Protestant arguments and paste them all into about forty-five different threads. However, that's obviously not going to get us anywhere. If you, or anyone else, thinks that Akin made an exceptionally good argument, feel free to reformulate his argument and present it.

[Jake Huether]

I am not compelled to respond to an article not written by a member of this board, especially since it didn't address the argument I raised.

Hach*cop-out*chew! Oh, excuse me. Uh... Must be my alergies.

[dUSt]

Since they clearly contradict in an important matter, we should reject the supposedly new books of Scripture (new in relation to the rest of the OT, that is, as they were written later).

1. You have not shown where they contradict.

2. If we are to reject the new books of scripture then let's throw out the NT too.

[Dave]

(Dave) Also, John, as for the idea that the deuterocanonicals contradict the rest of scripture, that's like how atheists claim that there are discrepancies in the Bible.

(Me) No, because I'm arguing on a much better exegetical basis, and I'm doing so in the effort of judging new documents' canonicity by old documents. Since they clearly contradict in an important matter, we should reject the supposedly new books of Scripture (new in relation to the rest of the OT, that is, as they were written later).

As dUSt said, you have NOT shown where they contradict.

(Dave) As for the passage from Sirach you cite, remember in the New Testament (can't remember which book it's in, sorry), it says that love covers a multitude of sins. The passage means that the love shown in giving alms atones for sin. So there's no contradiction there. Besides, if there was a contradiction, why would God say, "It is mercy I desire, not sacrifice" (in the Psalms, I think)?

(Me) 1 Peter 4:8 uses 'Kalupto,' to hide or veil knowledge from. It means, then, that a person's love hides or veils knowledge of the beloved's sin. The Sirach quote, on the other hand, refers to actual atonement for sin, and says that it is accomplished for yourself by your alms-giving.

Even if I'm wrong about that passage, you still ignore how throughout the Psalms and other parts of the Old Testament God says the sacrifice he requires is mercy to others and repentance when he's calling Israel to repent. Interpret scripture in light of ALL scripture, not just one or two passages!

(Dave) And your refusal to respond to what cmom wrote is a cop-out, and you know it.

(Me) I responded to everything cmotherofpirl wrote. I responded to nothing James Akin wrote. If you expect me to argue with cut 'n' pasted articles, then I will expect you to argue with cut 'n' pasted articles, and I'll just go download a glut of Protestant arguments and paste them all into about forty-five different threads. However, that's obviously not going to get us anywhere. If you, or anyone else, thinks that Akin made an exceptionally good argument, feel free to reformulate his argument and present it.

More cop-outs.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) This question has been the subject of debate in Protestant circles. Supralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from men as simply men, while infralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from the race of fallen men. Infralapsarianism is the majority report, so I tend to be sympathetic to it. However, I would have to ultimately say "No comment," because I'm not convinced that the Bible gives an obvious and clear answer.

(Dave) A non-answer.

(Me) More or less, yes. And? Why should I be required to have an answer?

(Previous) In regards to the temporal assertion, I'm just repeating Paul's words:

Ephes. 1:4

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In regards to the existence of predestination (which I would take to be anthropomorphism):

Ephes. 1:5

he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

The "it all happens at once" approach misunderstands the nature of God's relation to spatial-temporal happenings. For instance, it is obvious that the universe came into existence because of God's choice to cause it to come into existence. Such can be paralleled with the rest of God's decree.

(Dave) Another non-answer. None of those passages explain how God can choose and yet respect free will.

(Me) He doesn't.

(Previous) I'm really getting sick of your arrogant, insulting attitude ("your own biased interpretation"). Heaven forbid that I came to read these passages as I do through long nights of careful study spent in tearful reflection!!

(Dave) All I'm telling is the truth. If you didn't want to hear it, then maybe you shouldn't have responded. In addition, I've found your attitude nothing less than arrogant and insulting -- ignoring what we say and then accusing us of not proving anything.

(Me) Rhetoric.

(Dave) And as for all that study and "tearful" reflection you did, how do you know the conclusions you arrived at were true?

(Me) Reason.

(Previous) It's absurd to claim that Jeremiah 18 was a proof-text for Romans 9, because, if it were, he would have quoted it as such. Yet, he did not. Therefore, the best you can say is that he alluded to it. And, from the start, I've been more than willing to deal with that possibility.

(Dave) How can you claim to know what Paul would or wouldn't have done?

(Me) Look at the proof-texts in the rest of the chapter. There is a marked difference in presentation. Again, I've been more than willing to consider the possibility of similarity or even allusion.

(Previous) I don't see a single argument in here -- just assertion. I will be waiting for exegesis of the chapter in context. I'm also a little unimpressed that you haven't tried to deal with my exegesis.

(Dave) There was exegesis galore, and you know it. You're just ignoring what I wrote, probably fearing that if you read it, it might actually make sense. And I HAVE dealt with your exegesis, but you just don't want to see it. And yet you call me arrogant?

(Me) Can you give me the time and date of the post in which you gave a point-by-point rebuttal to my exegesis?

Your explanation in the above discussion goes through Jeremiah 18, yes. However, all of that is worthless unless Paul is using Jeremiah 18 as a proof-text. However, not only does Jeremiah 18 not fit into the flow of his thought (argued elsewhere), but Paul makes no explicit quote, nor does he preface anything with, "Thus says the Lord."

(Previous) While a lot of this is excellent (and, more or less, what I suggested earlier), you didn't underscore the importance of verse 6:

Romans 9:6

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

The implication, then, is that the real Israel will all be saved, as the word of God promises. Obviously, the "children of the promise" later mentioned would be those included in this Israel.

(Dave) Oh, so you agree with me? Romans 9:6 doesn't change the case I presented in the least.

(Me) I actually agreed with the vast majority of your exegesis -- that's why my comments were sparse. However, I thought it worthwhile to point out something that you didn't emphasize to the point to which I think it needs to be emphasized. I did not mean that the thrust of your discussion of these intro verses was horribly misled because of that.

(Previous) The loved/hated thing is a Semitic idiom that probably just means that Jacob was favored over Esau. The modern implications of 'hate' are not in view.

You need to keep in mind the overall argument as laid out in verses 1-6. He is explaining how the true Israel has certainty of salvation, but not all of national Israel -- thus, many individuals in Israel are not saved. The two examples demonstrate that lineage is not the key, rather the promise is; again, lineage nor our actions are the key, rather the promise is. You've passed over "God's purpose in election," which causes serious problems for your exegesis. Paul explains that some national Israelites are not saved, but all true Israelites are saved, because of "the promise," because of "God's purpose in election." Individual election is Paul's solution to the problem presented through verse 5.

(Dave) Still more reading your own interpretation into things.

(Me) I pointed out that you passed over a phrase entirely. Surely that does not mean that I am reading in my own interpretation. Rather, it means that you are reading in your own interpretation, as you must ignore important parts of the text in order to sustain your reading!

Also, it is clear here that my noting earlier your under-emphasis on the significance of verse 6 was vital. Understanding the purpose of Paul's argument in Romans 9 -- that is, explaining how the true Israel is all saved, but not all of national (or ethnic) Israel. Then, relating that to the fact of "God's purpose in election" and "the children of promise" is a necessity. You have passed over this important facts in your exegesis. The history of exegesis of Romans 9 is simply the history of people trying to avoid the obvious conclusion of unconditional election (even the Roman Catholic Thomists realize this!).

(Dave) You can't just take a passage and build a doctrine around it; you have to interpret it in the light of the rest of Scripture! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

(Me) Sure, let's interpret it in light of Romans 8 (which is vital to understanding the meaning of Romans 9, in that he has built up the assurance of salvation in 8, but the Jewish rejoinder remains), the Pauline doctrine of election elsewhere expressed, or even Jesus' doctrines of election and effectual calling. Romans 9 is the powerhouse, however.

(Dave) For goodness' sake, read what I write -- all of it -- the whole post! You said actions don't make a difference,

(Me) Paul says that election is "not because of works but because of His call," and explains that this is "in order that God's purpose in election might continue." Clearly, then, Paul takes the power over election out of our hands and into God's.

(Dave) but I've just shown that they most certainly do -- God's purpose in election is made clear in that Israel has chosen not to believe. The passage makes that perfectly clear. Again, reread what I wrote, and do it carefully!

(Me) I didn't see where you explained to what "God's purpose in election" refers. If you did, just give me a quote.

(Previous) The emphasis of verse 16 is on God unilaterally having mercy. No mention is made of being humble; and, inDouche, such a basis is opposed, for being humble is running or willing.

(Dave) Yet again, you put your own spin on things without giving proof for your interpretations. Yet another non-answer.

(Me) For what did I need to give proof? Let's dissect what I said according to the text.

Romans 9:16

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

"The emphasis of verse 16 is on God unilaterally having mercy."

This was my thesis. The fact that "it depends... on God, who has mercy" demonstrates it. The fact that it is unilateral is shown by the fact that "it depends not on human will or exertion."

"No mention is made of being humble;"

A simple read through Romans 9:16 will show that not once does it say that it depends on our humility.

"and, inDouche, such a basis is opposed, for being humble is running or willing."

Do we not will to be humble (willing)? Do we not act to be humble (running/exertion)? Therefore, humility is included under "it depends not on human will or exertion."

(Previous) With the active/passive thing, you're mostly arguing against hyper-Calvinism, which is not really Calvinism at all. The reference to Romans 1:18 is the same kind of argument such famous modern Calvinists as RC Sproul use.

However, you're ignoring the force of "for this very purpose I have raised you up." In other words, God purposed against Pharoah. Paul thereby vindicates his claim that God can be just in choosing for some and against others.

(Dave) I've proven that this is not the case. Yet again, you ignore what I say and put your own spin on things.

(Me) You've demonstrated that both God and Pharoah hardened his heart. I agreed with this. You did not deal with the fact that God raised up Pharoah "for this very purpose." Your exegesis conveniently ignores each and every key phrase in Paul's argument, such that you conclude with a reading wholly foreign to the text.

(Previous) "You ought to know what becomes of those who harden their hearts against God, those who reject God's mediator" -- this isn't following the textual claim, which is that God raised Pharoah up for a purpose -- not that God is justified in condemning the unrepentant.

(Dave) More putting your own spin on things. What makes you so sure your interpretation is correct? Besides, I made it clear earlier that God ALLOWED his hardness of heart -- Pharaoh chose to do so, and God "blessed" his decision.

(Me) Yes, of course, as I already agreed!!! However, that fact does not settle the disagreement in interpretation. For, I claim that God purposed Pharoah's unrepentance, and did so by allowing the evil in his heart fuller reign. This claim obviously follows the text's words -- "For this very purpose I raised you up." God's use of the reprobate is purposive, so that by them His power and mercy may be made known.

(Previous) Isaiah 53 has the elect primarily in mind. The fact that it is talking about the elect's depravity and salvation does not mean that there is no depravity for the unelect.

And, inDouche, we must wondered how the elect were prepared for glory if they were not prechosen! We must also wonder how this allows a vessel of wrath to become a vessel of mercy -- Pharoah, Esau, and Ishmael were certainly unable to do so.

(Dave) Why won't you read what I wrote originally? Are you scared what I say might actually make sense to you? Isaiah 53 was referring to EVERYONE -- no exceptions. You're making the text say something it doesn't say.

(Me) Your argument for this was the fact that it says that all for whom He died were sinners; thus, as all men are sinners, He must have died to save each and every one. However, as I noted, the fact that all for whom He died were sinners does not mean that He died for all sinners. For instance: everyone on the Red Sox roster is a professional baseball player; that does not mean, however, that all professional baseball players are on the Red Sox roster.

(Dave) And as for the elect being prepared for glory if they weren't pre-chosen, of course they're pre-chosen because God knows they won't resist His will. Pharaoh, Esau, and Ishmael were unable to do so because they, of their own free will, hardened their hearts against God, and as I said earlier, God "blessed" their decision. They remained vessels of wrath because they didn't wish to become vessels of mercy -- they resisted God's will to turn them into vessels of mercy, and God knew that all along.

(Me) The passage earlier said that the decision to favor Jacob was made apart from anything he would do. Likewise, it said that election was not based on our own willing or running, but on God's mercy. Therefore, to say that God's election is based on our own not resisting His grace is forced onto the text against its own teaching.

(Previous) "All kinds" is well within the semantic range of pas ("all").

(Dave) How do you know this? Proof?

(Me) Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, A.H. Strong's numbers, Thayer and Smith's Bible Dictionary, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Also, an implicit "kinds of people" fits easily into the context, especially based on the textual note to which I pointed earlier. Finally, such is well within the range of its translation into English.

(Previous) No, because the passage says that His sheep come to Him, that He gathers the sheep from all over unto Him. This presupposes that many sheep have not already come.

"They CHOSE not to be part of His flock" -- you're not looking at the force of the assertion. They do not believe -- that is, they do not repent or come to Him -- because they are not sheep. You say that they become sheep by repenting or coming to Him. Thus, it would be, "You do not believe because you do not believe." This is obviously absurd.

(Dave) No, I'm not saying, "You do not believe because you do not believe." You're reading into my remarks things that just aren't there, as well as reading your own interpretation into things? Jesus knew their heart and knew they had no intention of believing or repenting, and as a result, they couldn't become sheep.

(Me) He does not say, "You do not believe because you will not become sheep"; rather, He says "You do not believe because you are not my sheep." The sheep believe, and non-sheep do not. Additionally, this causes the same reduction to absurdity. If "will not become sheep" is equivalent to "will not believe," then Jesus said, "You will not believe because you will not believe."

Also, you've ignored my argument against "becoming" a sheep.

(Dave) It doesn't say that God made it so they didn't believe, and in light of what I wrote earlier in this thread, He would never do that, except in the sense of "blessing" their decision not to.

(Me) Please properly represent my position. You can set up a position I do not hold and tear it down all day (as you have been more than willing to do regarding perseverance, election, depravity, communion, and authority), but it is not going to solve the disagreement. It's not like I think that these people are desperately trying to believe, but God is keeping them down. Rather, I believe that none seek God, none do good, and none are able to submit to God's law, because we are all dead in our trespasses. Dead men cannot move themselves to repent unto God -- they need to be resurrected first.

(Previous) Yes, you said that, but it in no way deals with the question of reprobation!!! These texts teach clearly that many individuals are predestined for damnation. Romans 1 gives us an idea of how that happens: their hearts are hard and wicked, so God gives them over to those wicked desires.

(Dave) Yes it does deal with the question of reprobation, but you've chosen to put on blinders and ear plugs. Reminds me of someone putting their fingers in their ears and going, "La la la la la la la la la . . . " when they don't want to hear what's being said. I have shown you earlier how your interpretation won't wash -- they allowed their hearts to be wicked, so God "blessed" their decision.

(Me) Yes, absolutely!!! Their hearts were wicked, and God left them in it!!! Yes!!! This is beside-the-point, however -- you are arguing against Hyper-Calvinism here, as I explained earlier.

(Dave) Please read what we have to say and think about it rather than ignore it. And the next time you come here, please be humble enough to admit you could be wrong rather than grasp at straws to salvage your sinking ship.

(Me) This is just a petty insult, so will be ignored. I'm sure that anyone reading any this thread with a critical eye will see whose ship is sinking and who is grasping at straws. Most of the arguments I've made above are just the ones Augustine made against Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians. To say that Augustine's defense was wrong is one thing -- but it is another entirely to say that he was grasping at straws.

[Dave]

(Previous) This question has been the subject of debate in Protestant circles. Supralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from men as simply men, while infralapsarians believe that God chose the elect and reprobate from the race of fallen men. Infralapsarianism is the majority report, so I tend to be sympathetic to it. However, I would have to ultimately say "No comment," because I'm not convinced that the Bible gives an obvious and clear answer.

(Dave) A non-answer.

(Me) More or less, yes. And? Why should I be required to have an answer?

That's just a cop-out.

(Previous) In regards to the temporal assertion, I'm just repeating Paul's words:

Ephes. 1:4

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In regards to the existence of predestination (which I would take to be anthropomorphism):

Ephes. 1:5

he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

The "it all happens at once" approach misunderstands the nature of God's relation to spatial-temporal happenings. For instance, it is obvious that the universe came into existence because of God's choice to cause it to come into existence. Such can be paralleled with the rest of God's decree.

(Dave) Another non-answer. None of those passages explain how God can choose and yet respect free will.

(Me) He doesn't.

Oops, I misspoke. What I meant to say was that none of those passages explain how God can choose and thus deny free will in the process. But anyway, all that passage from Ephesians says is that God has worked out everything ahead of time. In addition, he calculated everything to be in accordance with his will. But that passage doesn't say anything about a person's free will not being a part of it.

(Previous) I'm really getting sick of your arrogant, insulting attitude ("your own biased interpretation"). Heaven forbid that I came to read these passages as I do through long nights of careful study spent in tearful reflection!!

(Dave) All I'm telling is the truth. If you didn't want to hear it, then maybe you shouldn't have responded. In addition, I've found your attitude nothing less than arrogant and insulting -- ignoring what we say and then accusing us of not proving anything.

(Me) Rhetoric.

So if you resort to put-downs or attack my scholarship, it's justified, while if I do the same to you, it's rhetoric?! What a hypocritical double standard!

(Dave) And as for all that study and "tearful" reflection you did, how do you know the conclusions you arrived at were true?

(Me) Reason.

And how do you know your reasoning isn't flawed?

(Previous) It's absurd to claim that Jeremiah 18 was a proof-text for Romans 9, because, if it were, he would have quoted it as such. Yet, he did not. Therefore, the best you can say is that he alluded to it. And, from the start, I've been more than willing to deal with that possibility.

(Dave) How can you claim to know what Paul would or wouldn't have done?

(Me) Look at the proof-texts in the rest of the chapter. There is a marked difference in presentation. Again, I've been more than willing to consider the possibility of similarity or even allusion.

I dealt with that in my post on August 8. And you apparently haven't been willing to consider anything of the sort, considering how you insist on reading your interpretation into everything.

(Previous) I don't see a single argument in here -- just assertion. I will be waiting for exegesis of the chapter in context. I'm also a little unimpressed that you haven't tried to deal with my exegesis.

(Dave) There was exegesis galore, and you know it. You're just ignoring what I wrote, probably fearing that if you read it, it might actually make sense. And I HAVE dealt with your exegesis, but you just don't want to see it. And yet you call me arrogant?

(Me) Can you give me the time and date of the post in which you gave a point-by-point rebuttal to my exegesis?

Your explanation in the above discussion goes through Jeremiah 18, yes. However, all of that is worthless unless Paul is using Jeremiah 18 as a proof-text. However, not only does Jeremiah 18 not fit into the flow of his thought (argued elsewhere), but Paul makes no explicit quote, nor does he preface anything with, "Thus says the Lord."

I talked about that in my post on August 8. You apparently didn't read it, so it really helps illustrate how much effort you've put into this.

(Previous) The loved/hated thing is a Semitic idiom that probably just means that Jacob was favored over Esau. The modern implications of 'hate' are not in view.

You need to keep in mind the overall argument as laid out in verses 1-6. He is explaining how the true Israel has certainty of salvation, but not all of national Israel -- thus, many individuals in Israel are not saved. The two examples demonstrate that lineage is not the key, rather the promise is; again, lineage nor our actions are the key, rather the promise is. You've passed over "God's purpose in election," which causes serious problems for your exegesis. Paul explains that some national Israelites are not saved, but all true Israelites are saved, because of "the promise," because of "God's purpose in election." Individual election is Paul's solution to the problem presented through verse 5.

(Dave) Still more reading your own interpretation into things.

(Me) I pointed out that you passed over a phrase entirely. Surely that does not mean that I am reading in my own interpretation. Rather, it means that you are reading in your own interpretation, as you must ignore important parts of the text in order to sustain your reading!

Also, it is clear here that my noting earlier your under-emphasis on the significance of verse 6 was vital. Understanding the purpose of Paul's argument in Romans 9 -- that is, explaining how the true Israel is all saved, but not all of national (or ethnic) Israel. Then, relating that to the fact of "God's purpose in election" and "the children of promise" is a necessity. You have passed over this important facts in your exegesis. The history of exegesis of Romans 9 is simply the history of people trying to avoid the obvious conclusion of unconditional election (even the Roman Catholic Thomists realize this!).

I am not ignoring anything. Rather, you're making the verse you cite mean something that it doesn't mean by ignoring the context. "God's purpose in election" refers to his foreknowledge of those who will not oppose His will and come to Him. "Children of the promise" refers to those who God foreknows will accept what He offers, namely, His salvation. God has promised salvation to all those who accept that gift. But it's of their own free will that they accept it.

(Dave) You can't just take a passage and build a doctrine around it; you have to interpret it in the light of the rest of Scripture! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

(Me) Sure, let's interpret it in light of Romans 8 (which is vital to understanding the meaning of Romans 9, in that he has built up the assurance of salvation in 8, but the Jewish rejoinder remains), the Pauline doctrine of election elsewhere expressed, or even Jesus' doctrines of election and effectual calling. Romans 9 is the powerhouse, however.

I've already demonstrated in my August 8 post and every post in this thread since then why your arguments won't work. How many times do I have to ask you to read what I write? And how many times do I have to remind you not to read your own interpretation into everything as if it were the logical answer?

(Dave) For goodness' sake, read what I write -- all of it -- the whole post! You said actions don't make a difference,

(Me) Paul says that election is "not because of works but because of His call," and explains that this is "in order that God's purpose in election might continue." Clearly, then, Paul takes the power over election out of our hands and into God's.

In other words, Paul is saying we can't work our way to heaven. The Church doesn't teach that anyway. It doesn't deny free will either. Rather, those who are saved are already chosen by God because they don't put any insurmountable obstacles in the way of it.

(Dave) but I've just shown that they most certainly do -- God's purpose in election is made clear in that Israel has chosen not to believe. The passage makes that perfectly clear. Again, reread what I wrote, and do it carefully!

(Me) I didn't see where you explained to what "God's purpose in election" refers. If you did, just give me a quote.

Well, just scroll upward in this post. I discuss it a little more.

(Previous) The emphasis of verse 16 is on God unilaterally having mercy. No mention is made of being humble; and, inDouche, such a basis is opposed, for being humble is running or willing.

(Dave) Yet again, you put your own spin on things without giving proof for your interpretations. Yet another non-answer.

(Me) For what did I need to give proof? Let's dissect what I said according to the text.

Romans 9:16

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

"The emphasis of verse 16 is on God unilaterally having mercy."

This was my thesis. The fact that "it depends... on God, who has mercy" demonstrates it. The fact that it is unilateral is shown by the fact that "it depends not on human will or exertion."

"No mention is made of being humble;"

A simple read through Romans 9:16 will show that not once does it say that it depends on our humility.

"and, inDouche, such a basis is opposed, for being humble is running or willing."

Do we not will to be humble (willing)? Do we not act to be humble (running/exertion)? Therefore, humility is included under "it depends not on human will or exertion."

What that means is human will as opposed to God's will. God wills for us to be humble. Humble people don't put any obstacles in God's path, so His will is done in them.

(Previous) With the active/passive thing, you're mostly arguing against hyper-Calvinism, which is not really Calvinism at all. The reference to Romans 1:18 is the same kind of argument such famous modern Calvinists as RC Sproul use.

However, you're ignoring the force of "for this very purpose I have raised you up." In other words, God purposed against Pharoah. Paul thereby vindicates his claim that God can be just in choosing for some and against others.

(Dave) I've proven that this is not the case. Yet again, you ignore what I say and put your own spin on things.

(Me) You've demonstrated that both God and Pharoah hardened his heart. I agreed with this. You did not deal with the fact that God raised up Pharoah "for this very purpose." Your exegesis conveniently ignores each and every key phrase in Paul's argument, such that you conclude with a reading wholly foreign to the text.

Conveniently ignores? Rhetoric.

But anyway, considering the context of Romans that I've demonstrated in previous posts, what that passage means is that God knew that Pharaoh would harden his heart, and so God "blessed" that decision. However, God makes good things come even out of bad things. As a result, because of His foreknowledge of Pharaoh's actions, God used it as an opportunity to show His majesty.

(Previous) "You ought to know what becomes of those who harden their hearts against God, those who reject God's mediator" -- this isn't following the textual claim, which is that God raised Pharoah up for a purpose -- not that God is justified in condemning the unrepentant.

(Dave) More putting your own spin on things. What makes you so sure your interpretation is correct? Besides, I made it clear earlier that God ALLOWED his hardness of heart -- Pharaoh chose to do so, and God "blessed" his decision.

(Me) Yes, of course, as I already agreed!!! However, that fact does not settle the disagreement in interpretation. For, I claim that God purposed Pharoah's unrepentance, and did so by allowing the evil in his heart fuller reign. This claim obviously follows the text's words -- "For this very purpose I raised you up." God's use of the reprobate is purposive, so that by them His power and mercy may be made known.

Read my remarks to your previous point, please.

(Previous) Isaiah 53 has the elect primarily in mind. The fact that it is talking about the elect's depravity and salvation does not mean that there is no depravity for the unelect.

And, inDouche, we must wondered how the elect were prepared for glory if they were not prechosen! We must also wonder how this allows a vessel of wrath to become a vessel of mercy -- Pharoah, Esau, and Ishmael were certainly unable to do so.

(Dave) Why won't you read what I wrote originally? Are you scared what I say might actually make sense to you? Isaiah 53 was referring to EVERYONE -- no exceptions. You're making the text say something it doesn't say.

(Me) Your argument for this was the fact that it says that all for whom He died were sinners; thus, as all men are sinners, He must have died to save each and every one. However, as I noted, the fact that all for whom He died were sinners does not mean that He died for all sinners. For instance: everyone on the Red Sox roster is a professional baseball player; that does not mean, however, that all professional baseball players are on the Red Sox roster.

That's a weak analogy. Once again, you're reading your own biases into the passage. We're not talking about professional baseball players; we're talking about sinners, which everyone is. But then again, I guess I didn't make it totally clear -- the elect are inDouche prechosen. But that's because God knew from the start who would deny Him so as to resist even the last possible thing that could've saved them. So God can't very well choose them to save. So then there's everyone else -- the elect -- those who allow God's will to be done in them.

(Dave) And as for the elect being prepared for glory if they weren't pre-chosen, of course they're pre-chosen because God knows they won't resist His will. Pharaoh, Esau, and Ishmael were unable to do so because they, of their own free will, hardened their hearts against God, and as I said earlier, God "blessed" their decision. They remained vessels of wrath because they didn't wish to become vessels of mercy -- they resisted God's will to turn them into vessels of mercy, and God knew that all along.

(Me) The passage earlier said that the decision to favor Jacob was made apart from anything he would do. Likewise, it said that election was not based on our own willing or running, but on God's mercy. Therefore, to say that God's election is based on our own not resisting His grace is forced onto the text against its own teaching.

No, it said Jacob was favored before they had done anything good or bad. God knew from all eternity what kind of person Esau was and what he would do. Besides, as I've talked about this chapter in Romans previously, you need to consider the whole context, which you haven't done. It's not doing violence to the text to claim that God had to base His choice on something.

(Previous) "All kinds" is well within the semantic range of pas ("all").

(Dave) How do you know this? Proof?

(Me) Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, A.H. Strong's numbers, Thayer and Smith's Bible Dictionary, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Also, an implicit "kinds of people" fits easily into the context, especially based on the textual note to which I pointed earlier. Finally, such is well within the range of its translation into English.

But your argument falls flat because you're making the passage and the context mean what you want it to mean, as usual, thus destroying your credibility. I said the Greek word for "kind" is "genos," which isn't used in the passage. You ignore that.

(Previous) No, because the passage says that His sheep come to Him, that He gathers the sheep from all over unto Him. This presupposes that many sheep have not already come.

"They CHOSE not to be part of His flock" -- you're not looking at the force of the assertion. They do not believe -- that is, they do not repent or come to Him -- because they are not sheep. You say that they become sheep by repenting or coming to Him. Thus, it would be, "You do not believe because you do not believe." This is obviously absurd.

(Dave) No, I'm not saying, "You do not believe because you do not believe." You're reading into my remarks things that just aren't there, as well as reading your own interpretation into things? Jesus knew their heart and knew they had no intention of believing or repenting, and as a result, they couldn't become sheep.

(Me) He does not say, "You do not believe because you will not become sheep"; rather, He says "You do not believe because you are not my sheep." The sheep believe, and non-sheep do not. Additionally, this causes the same reduction to absurdity. If "will not become sheep" is equivalent to "will not believe," then Jesus said, "You will not believe because you will not believe."

Also, you've ignored my argument against "becoming" a sheep.

No, you miss the point once again. I agree that sheep believe and non-sheep don't. However, becoming sheep is the CONSEQUENCE of believing; it's absurd of you to claim I was saying Jesus was saying, "You will not believe because you will not believe." It does NOT do violence to the text to say that those who aren't Jesus' sheep willed it to be that way. And your accusation that I ignored your argument against becoming a sheep is false. Reread my previous post.

(Dave) It doesn't say that God made it so they didn't believe, and in light of what I wrote earlier in this thread, He would never do that, except in the sense of "blessing" their decision not to.

(Me) Please properly represent my position. You can set up a position I do not hold and tear it down all day (as you have been more than willing to do regarding perseverance, election, depravity, communion, and authority), but it is not going to solve the disagreement. It's not like I think that these people are desperately trying to believe, but God is keeping them down. Rather, I believe that none seek God, none do good, and none are able to submit to God's law, because we are all dead in our trespasses. Dead men cannot move themselves to repent unto God -- they need to be resurrected first.

More rhetoric. I have made no straw men. As for your last 2 statments, however, you're correct that You are actually correct on one point: A dead man cannot bring himself back to life.

But you are wrong in assuming Catholics believe he can. Catholics do not believe that we can bring ourselves into a relationship with Jesus Christ by good works. We believe that a man is saved totally by the grace of God.

This grace empowers our wills so that we can freely cooperate with grace to be sure, but without grace it is impossible for us to be saved. As Ephesians 2:8-9 says: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — not because of works, lest any man should boast." We were powerless to "bring ourselves back to life" when we were "dead in sin," as you rightly said.

Think about it: We Catholics baptize babies, just as you Presbyterians do! And we believe the babies are justified at that point. How many good works has a baby done?

Once we are saved, however, we must continue to cooperate with God's grace and perform good works, as Ephesians 2:10 says: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works." And if we continue to do good works by God's grace in us, not by our own power, we will merit eternal life, as St. Paul says in Romans 2:6-7: God "will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing [works] seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."

I would suggest you read Romans 2:6-10 as well as Galatians 6:7-8. Both of these texts make very clear that we must perform good works in order to attain eternal life. However, the key here is your assumption that our being brought from death unto life" eliminates the possibility of free, human cooperation in the process. This is not true and this is what I think we need to focus on now.

When a person is spiritually "dead," as St. Paul says in Ephesians 2, this does not mean his soul does not exist and must be brought into being from non-being. If that were true, then you would be correct. We could not cooperate in bringing our own soul into being.

However, the soul of the unregenerate man is already alive and able to know and understand. (We are assuming that we are talking about an adult convert at the moment.) His soul is spiritually dead. Even though a soul that is in a state of spiritual death cannot merit anything from God, this does not mean he cannot cooperate with God who calls the "dead" man to rise up and be saved.

This is clearly what we see with Saul who would become Paul. If anyone was ever "dead in sin," it was Saul. Yet in Acts 22:16 he was asked to cooperate with the grace of God in the cleansing of his sins when Ananias said to him, "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

The Bible is very clear: Man is truly free, and God calls him to choose freely to serve or not to serve the Lord. From the famous Old Testament charge of Joshua to "choose this day whom you will serve" (Jos 24:15) to the very words of Jesus Christ himself, "If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink" (Jn 7:37), our freedom to choose disobedience or the will of God is absolutely central to the teachings of Sacred Scripture.

(Previous) Yes, you said that, but it in no way deals with the question of reprobation!!! These texts teach clearly that many individuals are predestined for damnation. Romans 1 gives us an idea of how that happens: their hearts are hard and wicked, so God gives them over to those wicked desires.

(Dave) Yes it does deal with the question of reprobation, but you've chosen to put on blinders and ear plugs. Reminds me of someone putting their fingers in their ears and going, "La la la la la la la la la . . . " when they don't want to hear what's being said. I have shown you earlier how your interpretation won't wash -- they allowed their hearts to be wicked, so God "blessed" their decision.

(Me) Yes, absolutely!!! Their hearts were wicked, and God left them in it!!! Yes!!! This is beside-the-point, however -- you are arguing against Hyper-Calvinism here, as I explained earlier.

I see no difference.

(Dave) Please read what we have to say and think about it rather than ignore it. And the next time you come here, please be humble enough to admit you could be wrong rather than grasp at straws to salvage your sinking ship.

(Me) This is just a petty insult, so will be ignored. I'm sure that anyone reading any this thread with a critical eye will see whose ship is sinking and who is grasping at straws. Most of the arguments I've made above are just the ones Augustine made against Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians. To say that Augustine's defense was wrong is one thing -- but it is another entirely to say that he was grasping at straws.

Anyone reading this thread will see how you've consistently ignored what I've said and insisted on reading your own interpretations into Bible passages to make them say what they don't say. I was saying nothing about Augustine; it's in how you interpret what he says.