Any Calvinists out there?

[David777]

I was taught to read the Bible in a literal fashion. After years of reading in a literal fashion there has been no problems of any note.

I always read the book of Romans in a literal way, conscious of context. I was taught to read in context at University and at school.

Looking at John Calvin's arguments for election on the internet.

I noticed the way John Calvin used Romans 8:29-30. I thought something is wrong here.

Romans 8:29-30 (New American Standard Bible)

29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Calvin applies Romans 8:29-30 in a much more narrow sense, to individual election? (Institutes of the Christian Religion III xxi 5)

This use of this quote is out of context. I naturally assumed "systematic theology" would always read the book of Romans in context.

Who was the intended target of the book of Romans. The Jews of course.

Romans 2:17 "But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law"

Romans 3:1 "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?"

Romans 4:1 "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?"

Need I continue? You and I know the intended target audience.

Further inquiry exposed a similiar treatment of the same passage by Augustine. (De Praedestinatio, chapter VIII).

I must have read the book of Romans fifty times, each time in context. In Roman 8:29-30, Paul is specifically referring to the election of Israel.

Reading "Romans 8:29-30" out of context automatically changes the meaning of the verse. In context, the Jews are predestined in Christ.

Out of context creates the impression of election through some eternal choice of God.

The use of the word "foreknew" means precisely what Paul intended it mean. How did Augustine make this apparent error?

Even more so, how did Calvin make the same apparent error? I do know John Calvin was a scholar, where is the problem?

I would be happy to hear from anyone who knows why the passage is not quoted in context. As this directly shapes its meaning.

Please keep your answer compact.

 

[rojoloco]

Who was the intended target of the book of Romans. The Jews of course.

Actually, Romans 1:7 tells us it is written "to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints." It was not just to Jews but to both Jews and Gentiles alike, called as saints. In fact, verse 13 implies that the church in Rome probably consisted of a majority of Gentiles since Paul categorizes them as part of the Gentiles he is reaching out toward. This actually makes sense since Paul was a minister primarily to Gentiles while Peter was primarily a minister to the Jews (Galatians 2:7). This is not to say Jews were not in the Church but the text does imply it was primarily a Gentile congregation.

Need I continue? You and I know the intended target audience.

Actually, based on my above paragraph, I don't believe you do. I do agree that there were Jews in the congregation but there is no denying the text implies it was primarily Gentiles (Romans 1:13) while it was written to both Jews and Gentiles who were called as saints in Rome (Romans 1:7). Your point that it was intended for Jews cannot be achieved when read in a literal sense as you say.

I must have read the book of Romans fifty times, each time in context. In Roman 8:29-30, Paul is specifically referring to the election of Israel.

It is easy to reach this conclusion if you truly think Romans was written to Jews. However, we both see it was not nor is there any textual basis to think that it is considering there is a strong textual basis to show that it was not.

Reading "Romans 8:29-30" out of context automatically changes the meaning of the verse. In context, the Jews are predestined in Christ.

Reading it out of context is what brought this conclusion about in the first place though. If the epistle is to the Jews and Gentiles called as saints in Rome, that means God predestined Jews and Gentiles alike. There is no reason to exclude one when it was clearly written to both.

Out of context creates the impression of election through some eternal choice of God.

Actually, exegesis comes to that conclusion. It is based on the target audience (who we now know to be both Jews and Gentile alike), the Greek word used (which means a purposeful decree), as well as the context of the passage when looked at in the light of other passages.

The use of the word "foreknew" means precisely what Paul intended it mean. How did Augustine make this apparent error?

If we continue to read, we see that the "foreknew" actually IS referring to specific individuals. It is not implying that God knew choices nor is it implying that God was ignorant of anybody. What it does explicitly state is that God foreknew a specific individual in a specific way for a specific purpose decreed from eternity past.

Even more so, how did Calvin make the same apparent error? I do know John Calvin was a scholar, where is the problem?

The problem came a few years after the death of Calvin in the form of Jacobus Arminius.

I would be happy to hear from anyone who knows why the passage is not quoted in context. As this directly shapes its meaning.

Please keep your answer compact.

I'm headed to bed right now (daughter was born a week ago and wakes up a lot at night) but I will try to get to this soon. I am indeed a 5 point Calvinist. That is not to say I agree with everything Calvin taught but I do agree with the 5 points brought up by the Church of Holland in response to the 5 points brought up by the Remonstrants.

 

[David777]

Pleasant dreams.

I have other things to do to. But I will reply, ASAP.

 

[David777]

Here we go, my friend Mr Rojocolo

Please Mr Rojocolo read this reply carefully.

It is vital to establish in the book of Romans, who Paul was addressing.

Was it really written to Jews and Gentiles?
Or was it primarily written to Jewish Christians as some commentators have argued.

Even though within Romans, Paul says this letter is to "Jews and Gentiles".

One would seriously doubt that a Gentile would understand much about why Israel did not achieve justification through the law.
Unless of course there was a very strong Judaic influence on the Gentiles.

Why is the intent of Paul letter to the Romans of fundamental importance?
It is of fundamental importance because if this letter is aimed at Jewish Christians then the meaning of verse Romans 8:29-23 precisely concerns Israel.

If not, then a more general interpretation of
Romans 8:29-30 is somewhat possible. I say this with reservation.

Why? The wording of Romans 8:29-30 is too precise to allow a generalisation.
This letter to the Romans has a very deep explanation of law and grace.

In fact, this letter is the vital explanation why the church at Rome "was not under law but Grace"
This letter to the Romans is unlike Pauls other letters to Gentile audiences.

Starting at the second chapter of Romans, the audience that Paul is really addressing in Rome starts to become evident.
"But if you bear the name "Jew," and rely upon the law, and boast in God" Romans 2:17.

Now for the third chapter in Romans. Look at the first line, "Then what advantage has the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcission"
Again, Paul's target audience is clear. Paul explains through this chapter the law and righteousness in Jesus Christ apart form the law.

It ends with "Do we then nullify the Law through faith... we establish the law " Romans 3:31

At this stage, we have two chapters directly dealing with the Jews and the law.

There can be no debate so far about the intent of Paul in Romans. Paul is speaking to Jews.
If Paul, so far is speaking to Gentiles at all then it is with a fist in glove approach.
A fist for the Jews. A glove for the gentiles.
These "Jews" Paul's brethren, were destabilising Pauls other churches. This we know, Paul was trying to rein in the Jewish influence.

Let's continue with chapter four. First line, "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found."
This tells us immediately that chapter four is continuing in the same vein that Romans chapter two and three were.
Abraham the father of the Jewish nation, was justified by faith.

Rolling on to Romans five, justification through Jesus Christ. Pauls argument is building with each chapter.
Here Paul is capping what he has said in the previous three chapters with the true cornerstone.
Straightening out the misunderstanding of what the goal of the law was.
Some profound statements, a flood of pure Christian doctrine. Also mentioned law causes transgression to increase.

At this stage, the real Paul shines through. A former zealous Pharisee, immersed in Jewish Law, crushing the early buds of the Christian church.
Now, probably one of the few people on Earth who understood that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law.

Back to the sixth chapter of Romans. Sin and Grace. "for the wages of sin is death...free gift of God". Awesome.
Paul in Romans chapter seven now continues his argument. First introductory sentence, again we are back at the law.
"...Is the Law sin..." Romans 7:7. Law is spiritual, we are flesh. Sin taking its opportunity through the law killed Paul.
Further into chapter 7, verse 7:14-25 , without doubt probably the greatest explanation of the human condition ever written. These verses
are the crowning achievement of God's revelation to Paul. These verses are the soul of the Christian gospel. No wonder, reformed theologins
place the book of Romans on a pedestal. This is the explanation of reality of life itself. Nothing compares to these verses. It is the complete
Christian gospel in remarkable depth
in eleven verses. "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free form this body of death?" Need I say more.

At last we arrive at chapter 8 of Romans. We are aware of the preceding chapters. Law brings condemnation, death, the spirit gives life eternal.
Paul continues "For what the Law could not do,..." Romans 8:3. Paul continues the argument, the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God.
It is impossible in obedience to the law, in the flesh, to please God. Only in the spirit, can we cry out "Abba, father".

Paul now states the passage in question.
Romans 8:29-30. "Those He foreknew..." the same "foreknew" usage as Romans 4:1 "our forefather" as well as Romans 11:2 "God has not rejected His people whom He forknew"
Paul uses "fore" the same way each time referring to the previous condition not the current.
It is impossible to see this verse any other way. Paul is directly addressing his brothers "Jews". Why has Israel failed to achieve righteousness through the law.
Paul has gone to extreme lengths in answering this question.

If you still are unsure look at chapter 9 of Romans. Paul delves deeply again into the the reason why Israel failed. Read it and see for youself.

What is chapter 10 of Romans about? Pauls hearts desire is the salvation of Israel.
This caps the logical argument Paul has pursued from chapter 2.
There is only one way to view Romans 8:29-30, in context. Paul is referring to the nation of Israel.
There is no other option! It is definitely not applicable to individual election. The church at Rome was a Jewish Christian church.
Baa, baa, baa.

 

[rojoloco]

It is vital to establish in the book of Romans, who Paul was addressing.

I agree. However, we must find this fact in the text and not disregard the text in order to fit an idea. It is undeniable that Paul refers to Jewish traditions but nowhere does it say he is writing to Jews. You have inserted this idea and made it implicit where it is not explicit. Sometimes things are stated in an implicit manner but never where it contradicts the explicit.

It is of fundamental importance because if this letter is aimed at Jewish Christians then the meaning of verse Romans 8:29-23 precisely concerns Israel.

If not, then a more general interpretation of
Romans 8:29-30 is somewhat possible. I say this with reservation.

Again, we must begin with comparing the explicit to the implicit. The explicit states that it was written to "all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints" (Romans 1:7). The explicit states that Paul is comparing the church of Rome to "the rest of the Gentiles" (Romans 1:13). It is explicit that Paul says he is an apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 1:5, Romans 11:13).

To top it all off, it explicity states that he is writing to Gentiles in Romans 11:13.

But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles.

It doesn't get much more clear than that. Yes, there were more than likely Jews who were in the congregation but everything in the text shows that it was primarily comprised of Gentiles. He was writing to all who were beloved of God but was specifically reaching out to the Gentiles of the church; i.e. those whom he was an apostle to. Paul is sharing the Jewish teaching with the Gentiles for the very sake of showing the New Covenant and how they had been grafted in. What had once only applied to the Jews, his brethren, now applied to all who were beloved of God.

The church at Rome was a Jewish Christian church.

Again, not according to the explicit statements of Paul. Exegesis will show this. Eisegesis will show what you are proposing.

 

[David777]

My friend Rojoloco

Yes, the letter does implicitly state that the letter is addressed to both Jew and Gentile.
I am not arguing that point. In fact, I did mention that.

But, you did not comment on Romans 2:17 "But if you bear the name "Jew," and rely upon the law, and boast in
God". This is also implicitly stated. This is one of the main points in the argument.

It is from this point on, that Paul's argument is about Israel.

Again, Romans 3:1, "Then what advantage has the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcission"

It is clear what line of argument Paul is taking and whom he is directing this at.
You did not provide an answer to this verse. Please answer.

Then, even more important is the following.
Look at Romans 11:13-14,
13 "But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. In as much then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,"
14 "if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them."

Can you see the real reason Paul wrote this letter. This is implicit. This is the unavoidable conclusion. Paul in fact states why he is speaking to the Gentiles to move to jealously his bothers the Jews. That's precisely what Paul said. His argument is aimed at the Jews. Fist in glove. Not so much educating Gentiles into a redundant Jewish Law and Grace. Not really educating the Gentiles as to how Israel was grafted out. He is stating his argument to the Jews.

The Jewish population in Rome was large, their influence on this church is enormous. Emperor Claudius evicted the Jews from Rome, they were constantly squabbling, stirring up trouble. It is not hard to imagine why.

Also, the most powerful implicit proof of exactly whom Paul was referring to in
Romans 8:29-30. Look at the following verse.

Romans 11:2,
"God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "

There is no other way to read this passage nor Romans in general. Paul is directly speaking to the Jews, within the Jewish and Gentile mix. Pauls stated that was his aim. Please comment Mr Rojoloco.

You said "there were more than likely Jews who were in the congregation"
More than likely? Now lets be precise. You argued that this was implicit not explicit. Paul stated the letter was to Jew and Gentile. But, he implicitly refers to the Jews. Like I quoted above.

 

[David777]

Mr Rojocolo

You must reply. You must explain Romans 8:29-30 in context.
I have explained how I read this verse. This is crucial to Calvinism.
This is the verse Augustine used for individual election.
Yours in Christ.

 

[MelodyC]

The old adage "those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still" is so true.

We should all desire to know God's Truth and the only way is not to follow staunchly the teachings of any man but to examine the scriptures for ourselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Lots of prayer and Bible reading. Best way to discover what God meant.

 

[David777]

Exactly.

Yes Melody, there is no other way.

If you believe in Jesus Christ, your already there.

Only when man starts to apply theology to the gospel do all the different views arise. Consequently, squabbling.

A simple child like faith, reading the Bible, and trusting Christ is the only true theology.

Baa, baa.

 

[MelodyC]

Yes Melody, there is no other way.

If you believe in Jesus Christ, your already there.

Only when man starts to apply theology to the gospel do all the different views arise. Consequently, squabbling.

A simple child like faith, reading the Bible, and trusting Christ is the only true theology.

Baa, baa.

Yes I agree this does put it in a nutshell for me.

I'm glad to be one of Christ's lambs. No better place to be than under the True Shepherd who laid down His life for his flock, Amen!

 

[rojoloco]

You know, George Muller felt the same way as most people on here. George Muller was a well known man of faith who created orphanages and helped countless children in need. At first, he was severely opposed to Reformed Theology; especially the tenets of Calvinism.

This is a quote of his regarding how he felt:

Before this period I had been much opposed to the doctrines of election, particular redemption, and final persevering grace; so much so that...I called election a devilish doctrine.

After a lengthy period of deep study and devotion, this was the result:

I went to the Word, reading the New Testament from the beginning, with a particular reference to these truths. To my great astonishment I found that the passages which speak so decidedly for election and persevering grace, were about four times as many as those which speak apparently against these truths; and even those few, shortly after, when I had examined and understood them, served to confirm me in the above doctrines.

And this is how he felt about whether or not man was of any use at all in a world where God has elected what shall come to pass:

In the course of time...it pleased God then to show to me the doctrines of grace in a way in which I had not sen them before. At first I hated them, "If this were true I could do nothing at all in the conversion of sinner, as all would depend upon God and the working of His Spirit." But when it pleased God to reveal these truths to me, and my heart was brought to such a state that I could say, "I am not only content simply to be a hammer, an axe, or a saw, in God's hands; but I shall count it an honor to be taken up and used by Him in any way; and if sinners are converted through my instrumentality, from an inmost should I will give Him all the glory;" the Lord gave me to see fruit; the Lord gave me to see fruit in abundance; sinners were converted by scores; and ever since God has used me in one way or other in His service.