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

__________________
Nathan Olaf Brandal

"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"
GEORGE WHITEFIELD TO JOHN WESLEY

My Blog

__________________
"I thank Thee that many of my prayers have been refused. I have asked amiss and do not have, I have prayed from lusts and been rejected, I have longed for Egypt and been given a wilderness".-Unknown

Julio, Amaya
Clifton, NewJersey
Reformed Baptist Church of North Bergen

Yeah I'm waiting too.

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

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.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Thank you Sir!

Aren't people groups made up of individuals?

__________________
Dan
OPC
Pennsylvania

“Christ’s sacrifice is absolutely infinitely sufficient and utterly secures the salvation of anyone for whom it was made. To deny that would be to deny the gospel.” --- John Gerstner

Dan shhh let's keep that quite

See here:
Commentary on Romans | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

AMR

__________________
Patrick
Member, PCA
Chandler, AZ
ReformedTheologyInstitute.com

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

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

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

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.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.