My impressions of the debate in progress

[Guest]

Thank you for your time,

PaulT

[Guest]

Steve, your explanation above on Romans 9 is very clear. If the chapter comes up again just read what you wrote above. I was able to hear days two and three and will be listening today. I have noticed a few subtle ad hominem attacks by Dr. White and an occasional phrase recited in Greek which adds nothing to the discussion other than to show "how much he knows". You have not responded to any of these, which is good. I would hope listeners pick this up on their own.

My greatest hope however, is that all who listen remain committed to "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Because, ultimately that is what will advance His kingdom.

In Him,

Jess

[Guest]

Hey, who was it that called me about wanting this debate a year and a half ago? Was it Brody? Am I remembering right?

[Guest]

Hi Rich,

I am sincerely trying to get a handle on what you are suggesting, but it isn't coming together in a way that makes sense...

Your last post sounds as if someone was complaining about there being a debate between Dr. White and myself, but you are pointing out that the request came from someone on this side of the aisle.

I guess I am not sure where you found a complaint about there being a debate.

To request a debate does not mean that one forfeits all rights to assess and even critique the debate techniques used by the participants.

Or were you responding to the citation of Eph.4:3, about keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? Were you interpreting this as a complaint about the fact that a debate was in progress? I don't think that was implied by the citation. If "the unity of the Spirit" and the conducting of debates are mutually exclusive, then we should not agree to do debates, no matter who suggests them. They would be forbidden in scripture.

What I am really wondering is whether you are presupposing that "unity of the Spirit" requires uniformity of opinion. That would be one way of making sense of your comment.

It would also help to explain something otherwise beyond my ken, which has come up in another thread [ http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 5&start=30 ], and that is that you seem to think it obvious that a man (Darin) who comes into a Calvinist forum to initiate discussion along non-Calvinist presuppositions is a man looking for trouble.

I suspect that, if you peruse this forum, you will come away totally astonished that we who post here welcome others who do not agree with our positions, and do not think that their challenges are threatening, nor do we assume that they are coming here looking for a fight. Nor do we think it our mission to change their minds. This is a learning environment, rather than an enforced-compliance-to indoctrination environment. It is, perhaps, a foreign concept to you. If you hang around much, you may come to like it. It might even spoil you for the other spirit.

[Guest]

Uhh, wow you jump to conclusions.

I was trying to remember who it was that originally contacted me about doing the debate. Nothing more.

[Guest]

My apologies. I am accustomed to posts in a thread following a train of thought. I think it might have been Brody whom you remember contacting you. However, a couple of other guys from Portland told me years earlier that they had contacted Dr. White's ministry about debating me. It was their idea, not mine, but I gave my approval.

[Guest]

Well, I am trying to remember. Because one in particular stood out and I can't remember who. They made the argument that you had time to devote that others didn't. If someone remembers telling me that......its them.

[_Rick_C]

I'm posting the following to add to what's been said about Romans 9-11.
Steve, you've done an excellent job, . What follows might be helpful for discussion about this aspect of the debate. "Israel in exile" is another point you could possibly use (or have used)....
Anyways, Session 4 is about to start and I have:

From Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog:
"Romans" discussion centered around N.T. Wright's Romans Commentary

Who is "Israel"?

Let us just say that a friend of mine gently reminded me (on the phone last Friday) that this might be a good opportunity to ask a much-neglected question in Romans study: Who is “Israel” in Romans? I’m willing to gamble on this one: most of us instinctively think “Israel” refers to one of two groups.

The question of this post of course is this: What does Paul mean when he refers to “Israel” in Romans 9–11?

Most see it as one of the two following: either ethnic Israel as all the descendants of Abraham/Jacob or the elect, believing members of the former group. And the “elective” Israel, this second view, for some becomes the Church (fulfillment idea) for Paul (and some point to Gal. 6:16). Thus, “Israel” is either an ethnic or an elective term. Let me expand just briefly: “elective” Israel refers either to Israel “within” Israel or to the faithful/just Israelite (including, perhaps, those who are in the Church).

Thus: Ethnic = Jews in the flesh
Elective = Those chosen by God to continue the Promise Line, the just Israelites, the remnant, and by extension the Church.

Are those the only options?

Let’s begin with this: “Israel” as a term occurs 12x in Romans and “Israelites” 3x.

Here are the references:

Rom. 9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel,
Rom. 9:27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved;
Rom. 9:31 but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law.
Rom. 10:19 Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
“I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”
Rom. 10:21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”
Rom. 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
Rom. 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
Rom. 11:11 So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
Rom. 11:23 And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
Rom. 11:25 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,
“Out of Zion will come the Deliverer;
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.”

Rom. 9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
Rom. 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
Rom. 10:16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”

Now here’s the glaring oddity of this display of evidence: Paul does not call Jews “Israel” until Romans 9–11. Why? Has he been thinking of “according to the flesh” Jews already? To be sure. Has he already thought of Jews and election already? To be sure.

So, why all of a sudden call them “Israel”? Let’s think of a couple things that show up in Romans 9–11 with force: first, Paul’s concern for “Israel.” Second, Paul’s location: he is in the Diaspora as a missionary. Third, Paul’s success is with Gentiles. How does he understand their belief? As provocation of Israel to jealousy. Who is “Israel” in this regard? Judean Israelites back in Jerusalem? Doubtful.

Why don’t we at least try to think of “Israel” referring not to either ethnic Israel or elective Israel but as northern Israel out in the Diaspora? Why not think of Paul’s mission to be right along what others have always believed within Judaism? Namely, that in the New Age there will be a unification of the twelve tribes? A revival of ancient northern Israel and flocking back to the Land? Then, “all Israel” will be saved.

Let’s add this to our list of what “Israel” possibly means as we read through Romans 9–11 along with NT Wright’s commentary on Romans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who indeed are you?

No one could dispute the force of Paul’s heavy hand in Romans 9:19-24. After advocating that God’s elective grace has been at work from the time of Abraham on, it is only natural (in Paul’s sense of the term) for someone to stand up and say that God could not then find fault with the unelect. After all, he made the choice. What does Paul say?

“Who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?” (Rom. 9:20).

Wright contends the secret to this passage lies in its focus on Israel, a rebellious and judged people, in Exile. Paul quotes from Isaiah 29:16 or 45:9 and from Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 and then Isaiah 10:22, 23. We are dealing, then, not simply with Israel (to whom might this refer?) but the Israel that is judged and in Exile.

Israel, in Exile, has no claim on God: God has been more than patient; God has made appeals through the prophets; Israel refused to respond; so God sent them into Exile. And, now Paul says (acc. to Wright), they cannot stand up and say, “It is not our problem; it is God’s. We are but puppets.”

And yet, God shows grace. Beyond the Exile will be the Return; beyond the Exile will be the New Covenant; beyond the Exile there will be the fortunes of Israel.

Does the choice of Hosea, words addressed to the northern kingdom, matter?

Had God chosen wrath the curtain on the Stage of Israel’s Story would have been closed and the story over. But, God was patient, sent Israel into Exile so that God could provoke Israel to repent and return to God and to the Land.

Who are the “vessels of glory”? That’s worth thinking about in light of yesterday’s suggestion that there are at least three options for “Israel” in Paul’s theology.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McKnight's blog-study is well worth reading. Why I'm adding this to what Steve posted is to give more context: to get into Paul's line of thought more objectively (without referencing Calvinism). What I mean by this is: When debating a systematic theology (like Calvinism), we focus on the points in that systematic theology. And in doing so we can miss the actual flow of thought in what was originally said (written). Put another way; when trying to reason as a Calvinist does on Romans 9-11, we may successfully raise questions about the Calvinistic system's legitimacy or even present arguments that can be claimed as refutations. But to really get to what the text says we have to "think inside Paul's box" without using Calvinist or non-Calvinist presuppositions as the reference point!

For example, take 1 Thess ch. 4 in a context of debating dispensationalism.
The dispensational system "clouds" what the text says to the point of missing its meaning! Nothing is said about getting raptured and going back to heaven...for seven years...then coming back to earth: Yet dispensationalists insist this is what this chapter teaches! The non-dispensationalist is put into the position of demonstating what the texts says, and only says. Anyone who has debated a dispensationalist knows just how difficult it is try to get dispensationalists to be objective about the text itself....without importing dispensationalist theology "into" what is written.

1 Thess 4, when looked at objectively, doesn't say anything similar to "dispensationalist time charts." In fact, the many elaborate concepts within dispensationalism just are not there!

The same can be said with Romans 9-11 in terms of Calvinism. It's system is simply not in Paul's mind. I guess what I'm getting at is---we have to remember Paul knew NOTHING about Calvinism, non-Calvinism, or Arminianism! We need to read and understand the text from the author's and the author's audience viewpoint.

It took me a few years to be able to "see the Bible" without the "dispensational lens" I had been taught to "see" it in. Let's be careful to get past our presuppositions! To know what Paul meant we also have to get past Calvin, Arminius, Augustine, and Pelagius too!
Let's keep this in mind always, friends! Thanks.

[Guest]

My post was not a complaint. I think the interchange has been cordial and civil. People judge us (and judge Christianity in general) based on what they hear form public figures like Steve and James White. There have been several invitations on the air to visit both TNP and AOMIN and we are also judged by what people see written here. We are all parts of the same body. I agree with Steve's comment that unity isn't the same thing as agreement on all issues.

My comment was not meant to mean "can't we just all get along" it was a reminder of what is most important in our interactions with the world.

Oops, gotta go and turn on my radio.

Jess

[_Rick_C]

But to really get to what the text says we have to "think inside Paul's box" without using Calvinist or non-Calvinist presuppositions as the reference point!

Calvinists argue that Romans 9 is about God's election of individuals to salvation.

Steve, and other non-Calvinists, have said Romans 9 is about God's election of individuals who were to carry out God's Redemptive Plan (Abraham, Isaac, etc.). But when non-Calvinists argue, "It isn't specifically about individual election to salvation" (which I agree is true) --- God's Redemptive Plan is inclusive of salvation to all individuals that were, and are, historically involved.

I know you kind of made reference to this, Steve.
What I'm saying is: We really can't sever salvation from the Redemptive Plan. Salvation was, and is, always extended toward the believing obedient. Individual response has always been optional. Make sense?