Archive for January, 2007
{{Romans 9:1-18}} is (by common consent) a rough spot. Some go in with theological girding in place and a skewed reading is bound to occur while others go in thinking they have to walk away convinced with Something because of the foreboding rumblings in the Christian atmosphere way above them. People might look at my (rather Paul’s) Pharaoh versus Israel model and think that Israel was eternally saved and Pharaoh eternally damned from the get-go. I beg to differ.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in apologetics, israel, salvation, study, the father | Comments (1)
We’re considering God’s righteousness and seeing how it works with mercy specifically in the case of the Jews. Thus far Paul impressed on us his sorrow that the Jews are not presently believers of the revealed Christ. Paul has been showing us how important a people they truly are and has taken us through history showing how and why God’s Word of Promise was established. We saw how they were kept from
Edom’s fate only by God’s mercy. Let’s look at this mercy.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in apologetics, human, israel, romans, salvation, sin, trinity | Comments (0)
These next few verses wind up being breeding ground for lots of
contention. Some have inappropriately used these verses to show that
Jacob was “saved” and Esau “damned to hell”. It seems to me that this
ignores Paul’s argument at this stage of his defense of the
righteousness of God: that being, God’s Word stands and now, why it
stands.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in apologetics, eschatology, human, israel, salvation, study, the father, trinity | Comments (0)
The question “what about the Jew” is frighteningly important in it’s
historic context. Paul immediately impresses upon the reader how
important his kinsmen according to the flesh are since it directly
impacts God’s good word.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in apologetics, israel, salvation, study, the father, trinity | Comments (1)
Let me start an investigation of the third movement of Paul’s defense
by directing attention to Brother Russ’ series on
Calvanism. There are
many discussions that may arise based on very old arguments that I
don’t want to spend (too much) time discussing. Not that the
discussions shouldn’t be—but rather it detracts from my purpose of
going through the book of Romans. Calvinists and Arminians would both
agree that their respective stance is a systematic doctrine. These
camps do not establish their doctrine solely on the grounds of these
three chapters of the Bible so I will not limit my overview of these
chapters to those doctrines either. (Here’s a
link to the rest of the study.)
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in apologetics, arminianism, calvinism, church, eschatology, israel, salvation, sin, the father, trinity | Comments (1)
