# Romans 9 interp Arm vs. Disp.



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2009)

Me and Josiah mainly Josiah have been able to get his sister in law to examine the DOG. Now Ive been out of the game for awhile in defending this. BUt refresh me if someone could please.

Romans 9

Arminians interpret it as not being Predestination.

Dispensationalists interpret it as specifically dealing with Jews.

blade


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jul 22, 2009)




----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2009)

Yeah I'm waiting too. 

Maybe a link to an article would be easier...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 22, 2009)

Most of the Arminian responses I've heard are from Dispensationalists.

Typically they will argue that Jacob and Esau refer to nations. They leave the immediate context and how Paul uses Scripture in the OT (Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated) and they move back into the OT and say: "Ah, see, this is referring to Israel and Edom as nations. God hated Edom because they were rebellious."

If they did this throughout Romans and throughout the NT it would destroy the flow of a bulk of NT teaching because the NT writers use texts in way that does not depend upon the original context but is quoted to reinforce a point that is obvious in the text.

The bottom line is that they believe that God elects people groups and not individuals.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2009)

Thank you Sir!


----------



## Scot (Jul 22, 2009)

> The bottom line is that they believe that God elects people groups and not individuals.



Aren't people groups made up of individuals?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 23, 2009)

Dan shhh let's keep that quite


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 23, 2009)

See here:
Commentary on Romans | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

AMR


----------



## pm (Jul 23, 2009)

*Dr. James White on Romans 9*

Dr. James White has an mp3 on Romans 9 that does of a good job.



> Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White



Look in the middle section of his website for "Romans 9 an Exegesis to share"


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 23, 2009)

Scot said:


> > The bottom line is that they believe that God elects people groups and not individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't people groups made up of individuals?



Yes, they are. However, to argue this way against Arminianism is barking up the wrong tree, because of the fallacy of composition. The qualities and characteristics of a group cannot be held to be the same as that of a part of the group. For instance, sodium is a poison. So is chloride. So you might think that if you combine these two things, you should never, ever sprinkle them on your breakfast eggs in the morning! But sodium chloride is table salt. When you add the two together, it becomes non-poisonous (at least in small quantities, whereas sodium and chloride will both put a hole in your tongue). Similarly, the better argument is to notice that Paul argues from the fact that they are children of Abraham and Isaac. That is to the fore in the passage. Nothing is mentioned in Romans 9 about them being nations. Besides, one cannot get around the fact that Jacob and Esau are representatives of their respective descendants. Even if they are being treated as nations, they are being treated as individuals being representative for their descendants. So, the Arminians cannot dodge the force of the passage in this way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 23, 2009)

Agreed Lane. I wasn't defending their exegesis. Again, the major issue is the eisegetical gymnastics they perform in order to avoid reading what Paul is actually saying in the passage. He can't be saying what he's actually saying so they will leave the immediate context (speaking of individuals) and use the passage Paul cites in order to mute what Paul's argument is. 

It would rather be like going to Acts where Paul is talking to the men at Athens and citing Paul's use of "Are we not all his children" and finding the Greek poet who used that phrase. On the basis of the poem, then, we would go back to Paul's speech and import whatever we learned about what that meant in the poem to override what Paul is actually telling the Athenians.

I have no respect for this abuse of the Scriptures and there is no point in even arguing the point with a man until he is willing to admit that he would never do that to Paul everywhere else Paul cites the Old Testament but inconsistently applies that hermaneutic here because it suits what he really wants Paul to be saying.


----------

