Romans 9:10-11 in Context: Reconciling with Latter-day Saint Christian Teachings on Pre-existence

Photo by Timothy Eberly on Unsplash | Commercial Use Allowed

In this comprehensive exploration, we will unravel the intricate tapestry of the Latter-day Saint doctrine of Pre-existence and its correlation with Romans 9:10-11. By examining the scriptural framework and historical context, we aim to unveil the profound harmony between these profound teachings, offering a greater appreciation for both the unity and diversity of God's eternal plan.

The recent discussion on how Latter-day Saint Christians reconcile the doctrine of Pre-existence with Romans 9:10-11 has sparked a lot of interest. This conversation took place in the LDS & Bible-believing Christian Discussion Group on Facebook. The individual who initially asked the question did not provide a doctrinal framework for their interpretation or perspective. It's assumed that this individual, who appears to be an admin for the group, may adhere to the doctrine of Predestination, which is held by proponents of Reformed theology, specifically Calvinism. The discussion and evidence presented aim to address how the doctrine of Pre-existence aligns with Romans 9:10-11.

The post includes actual screenshots from the group discussion alongside commentary. It's up to the reader to determine the validity and credibility of whether the original question was answered with sound and reasonable evidence.

Jon Clark:

"My understanding is that Mormon doctrine teaches that souls are eternal and live in a pre-existence prior to birth. 

For people who believe this doctrine, how do you explain Romans 9:10-11? 

"And not only that, but there was also Rebekah, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls."  

My Response:

Simple, Paul is writing to Roman Christians who are Jews. He is reminding them of the covenants God had made with Abraham and then with Jacob, and then with Moses. God's choosing of making a Covenant with Jacob and not Esau had nothing to do with their volition. God already had purpose in establishing Israel as YHWH's inheritance (cf Deuteronomy 32:8-9). This covenant was to establish the chosen lineage through which the messiah will be birthed from. And this was already established in the Pre-existence and God's plan of redemption. Paul was well aware of the doctrine of the Pre-existence as a learned Pharisee and Jew. This is also encapsulated in the Babylonian Talmud and the Bereshit as to six things having either been created or come into existence prior to the creation of the world and humanity. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, 

-- "Paul is writing to Roman Christians who are Jews."

Rome is and was a mix of cultures. Both Jews and Gentiles lived (and live) in Rome. 

-- "He is reminding them of the covenants God had made with Abraham and then with Jacob, and then with Moses"

Where is God reminding anyone of the covenants in the passage I cited? There's literally no mention of any covenants anywhere.

-- "Paul was well aware of the doctrine of the pre-existence as a learned pharisee and jew." 

An argument from silence. 

-- "This is also encapsulated in the Babylonian Talmud and the Bereshit as to six things having either been created or come into existence prior to the creation of the world and humanity."

So? The Babylonian Talmud does what exactly to prove spiritual truth?

Notice that the response provided only selected certain parts of what I had stated. This is called Cherry-picking. Here is the missing part that this individual appeared to choose not to respond to: 

God's choosing of making a Covenant with Jacob and not Esau had nothing to do with their volition. God already had purpose in establishing Israel as YHWH's inheritance (cf Deuteronomy 32:8-9). This covenant was to establish the chosen lineage through which the messiah will be birthed from. And this was already established in the Pre-existence and God's plan of redemption.

What is interesting here is that his question: Where is God reminding anyone of the covenants in the passage I cited? There's literally no mention of any covenants anywhere. seems to deflect much of what is presented. Discounting majority of the response given and only selecting a portion of it, and then respond to that portion is another observation of cherry-picking. 

 

My Response

Jon Clark, yes, Paul was writing to Jews. This is confirmed by many textual studies of the epistle. Paul's focus was on the law and the fulfillment of the law. 

As to your next point, you cherry picked a select set of verses instead of considering the immediate context as well as the overall context of Roman's 9, namely Roman's 8-11. 

As to your next point it is not an argument from silence. The doctrine of pre-existence has ancient origins and appears to stem from the Ancient Near East cult of Ophiris. Pythagoras is believed to have been associated with this ancient cult. According to historical accounts the doctrine of pre-existence is tied into the teaching and idea of the transfiguration = transmigration of the soul. Various ancient religious traditions within ancient cultures and societies held to some form or notion of the soul as being not only eternal, the soul having existed through various migrations. Today, one may see this in the teachings of reincarnation. Though they bear some similarities there are also distinct characteristics. 

With that said, the Pharisees actually held to the idea of preexistence and transmigration of the soul. 

Paul being a Pharisee and educated under Gamaliel, understood this and used this in his epistles regarding the preexistence of Christ and his high Christology. And since Pharisees held to the notion of a physical resurrection, which we see the Apostle Paul defend in 1 Corinthians 15. So, your claim and assertion I am arguing from silence is false and borne out of sheer ignorance and lack of study, further showing your apparent ignorance and illiterate understanding of scripture. 

Finally, yes since they are considered Jewish authority. 

Jon Clark 

 Timothy Berman, 

-- "Paul was writing to Jews."

One again, the epistle to the Romans was written to the church at Roman. 

Romans 1:7 - "to all who are believed of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 

If Paul was writing only to Jews, he would have said so. he didn't. 

As a city, Rome contained both Jew and Gentil. Certain verses are written to Jews: 2:17-18, "But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the Law and boast in God, and know His will and distinguish the things that matter, being instructed from the Law." 

Certain verses are written to Gentiles: 

2:14, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves." 

-- "This is confirmed by many textual studies of the Epistle."

It's refuted by the actual text of the epistle. Romans is written to Romans. 

-- "As to your next point, you cherry picked a select verses instead of considering the immediate context as well as the overall context of Romans 9, namely Romans 8-11." 

I asked a question about a passage. If you would like to expound using other verses, you are free to do so. 

--"As to your next point it is not an argument from silence."

It's an argument from silence in that you have not offered anything to suggest that Paul believed in preexistence. 

-- "appears to stem from the Ancient Near East cult of Ophiris."

Yeah, doesn't sound super Biblical. 

-- "With that said, the Pharisees actually held to the idea of the Pre-existence and transfiguration (transmigration) of the soul."

And Pharisaical Judaism is not Biblical Truth either. 

-- "we see Paul defend in 1 Corinthians 15"

Okay now we're getting somewhere. In which verses in 1 Corinthians does Paul defend pre-existence?

"So your claim and assertion I am arguing from silence is false and borne out of sheer ignorance and lack of study, further showing your apparent ignorance and illiterate understanding of scripture."

My claim of an argument of silence is because I'm still waiting for a reference that we can read in support of your claim that Paul believed in a pre-existence when he wrote Romans. Please proceed at any point.

-- "Finally, yes since they are consider(ed) Jewish authority.

I don't know what that means.

My response

Jon Clark, Yes and if you actually take some time to study, you'd find that there were anywhere from an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 Jews in Rome. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman in my first response to you above, I wrote the following: "Rome is and was a mix of cultures. Both Jews and Gentiles lived (and live) in Rome." 

Not sure why you are now suggesting that I didn't know there were any Jews living in Rome. 

Unfortunately, I was not allowed an opportunity to address his question. The reason (as will be expounded later on) is that I appeared to have been banned from the Group after the several exchanges and dialogue presented. Suffice it to say that I was not disagreeing with Jon Clark here. I merely pointed out that Romans was written to the Church in Rome and there is suggestion that much of the content was actually written to the Jews residing in Rome. This is not to say that Paul did not have in mind those who were Gentile Christians. 

Jon Clark

Let's try to present this more clearly since some appear to not fully comprehend the argument. 

1) The author of Romans 9 is God

2) Romans 9 tells us about the basis of election of Isaac's sons. 

3) God wants us to know and understand the basis of election of Isaac's sons. 

4) Romans 9 tells us "His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls."

5) God wants us to understand that the election of Isaac's son was based solely on the will of God. 

6) The argument presented is "for though they twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad." 

7) Isaac's sons cannot do good or bad before birth. 

8) Since election happened before birth, it could have not been on the basis of their good and bad. 

9) Their election could only have been based on God's will. 

10) God's argument is compelling and conclusive.

Conversely, if we believe that people can do good or bad before birth: 

11) Isaac's sons may have done good and/or bad before birth.

12) We don't know the good or bad Isaacs sons did before birth. 

13) That the election happened before birth is meaningless

14) God's argument that we know it is based on His will alone, is not decisive or settled.

My Response:

Jon Clark: Actually, Paul wrote the epistle. Not God. This definitely tells me the level of competence being presented. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman You reject the belief that all scripture is God-breathed?

My Response

Jon Clark, no, I didn't say that now did I.

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, no, you didn't say that. It was a question that I asked you. 

My Response

Jon Clark, and has nothing to do with the conversation. So why ask such a question?

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, Just a side note, I'll ask you to refrain from commenting your opinions on the level of intelligence, invested study or anything else regarding members of this group. Firstly, I have no interest in your opinions of my studies, but more importantly, it's certainly not the focus of the OP. 

Timothy Berman, all scripture is God-breathed. Romans chapter 9 is scripture. Therefore, Romans chapter 9 was breathed by God. Therefore, the author of Romans chapter 9 was God. 

What the reader may notice is the last response from Jon Clark. Yet, when you go to the section of this discussion, you notice that he actually said this: Let's try to present this more clearly since some appear to not fully comprehend the argument. What he is asking of me to do here is to refrain from commenting your opinions on the level of intelligence, invested study, or anything else regarding members of this group. Something he had already engaged in himself. He initially called into question, and stated his opine, of the very same thing when he stated that some appear to not fully comprehend the argument he is presenting. In those words, his very own words, he is doing exactly what he attempts to admonish me from refraining to do. 

Clark also appears to rely on 2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (KJV). The King James Version does not utilize the phrase - God-breathed and instead uses the term that scripture is given by inspiration of God. And if one takes the time to compare the various translations, they hold to the similar thought of the scriptures being inspired by God or revealing of God's word. It is only in the New Internation Version, Literal Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Legacy Standard Bible, Berean Literal Bible, Berean Standard Bible, et al. 

This begs the question - what does the phrase God-Breathed mean here in scripture? The Greek is theopneustos - θεόπνευστος, ον. However, what does that mean? It means divine inspiration. However, there seems to be much more to this that many Evangelical Christians seem to lack understanding. 

A friend of mine posted this on a Facebook group regarding the Greek usage found in 2 Timothy 3:16:

The Meaning of Theopneustos in the Greek Testament of Abraham.

Looking at its use in contemporary texts, the word “theopneustos” used by Paul that many infer to mean “God-breathed” is found in usage that really doesn’t fit that context or meaning.  Scholar, John C. Poirier, examines a number of texts that use this word and which demonstrate that it cannot mean “God breathed” or “inspired” since it is talking about certain objects that have other uses than scripture.  In the Testament of Abraham, which was written in Greek, it occurs towards the end of Recension A in section 20, and it is describing “theopneustic” ointments.

Looking to verify the translation myself I looked up the Greek text and found the section which I have provided with the OP.

Translation:

And immediately Michael the archangel stood beside him with multitudes of angels, and they bore his honorable soul in their hands in divinely woven linen.

And they tended the body of the righteous one Abraham with theopneustic ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death.

Poirier comments:

“Thus the ‘theopneustic’ ointments that the angels administer ‘until the third day’ appear to function as ‘life-giving’ preservatives to keep Abraham’s body in good repair, in case his soul should return to it.  Theopneustos therefore bears a vivificationist sense… The Testament of Abraham clearly did not use theopneustos to denote the idea of verbal or epistemic inspiration.  A meaning having to do with special life-giving properties of the ointments and herbs- properties like those associated with ambrosia- makes far better sense.” - John C. Poirier, “The Invention Of The Inspired Text”, p.44

This is excellent evidence that the word theopneustos likely should not be understood in Paul’s epistles to Timothy as “God-breathed” or “inspired from God”, but instead should carry the meaning “life-giving” or “vivifying”.

Another individual, Robert Boylan at Scriptural Mormonism posted this article regarding the usage of the Greek word and how we are able to understand it. 

Again, I was not able to go back and engage in that form of discussion due to what appears to be me being banned from the LDS & Bible Believing Christian Discussion group. And it is also the reason I mentioned the lack of competency in understanding these things. 

My Response

Jon Clark I will comment and point out the observable attitude and behavior being presented. Are you so full of yourself to be removed from correction, rebuke, and reproof?

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, you will refrain from making personal comments about group members. It's not a matter of me (again), it's a matter of group rules that were in place before I even got here.

My Response

Jon Clark, it's not personal opinion or comment. It's based on your own words. Based on what is being observed and calling it out for what it is. Sounds like you have quite a fragile ego and do not consider any possibility of being wrong. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, no, it sounds like exactly what I said - the group rules were not written by me and existed before I got here. We are all expected (myself included) to abide by them. 

You are free to think whatever pleases you about my ego. I'm comfortable with that. 

There is as reason for me calling out the possibility of him operating out of a fragile ego. He appears to attempt to point out that he is not liking his own sense of understanding being called into question. He appears to lack any actual insight that he may actually be wrong in how he is interpreting the passages, what he is attempting to present and appears to fall back on a passive aggressive sense of feeling victimized, projecting this onto me (and quite possibly others), as well as engaged in personalizing the direct approach taken towards the discussion. 

By calling out what is being observed here is to, hopefully, assist in helping this individual (and others) to realize that all of us are not beyond the scope of correction, rebuke, and reprove (after all - is that not what Paul tells Timothy scripture is for? (2 Timothy 3:16-17)). There also appears to be a sense of double standards and special pleading going on here. 

My Response

Jon Clark, so you are above correction, reproof, and rebuke and appear to behave like a petulant child who doesn't like to be called out for ill behavior? Yes, your lack of competence is quite apparent as observed and established by your own reasoning, logic, and false claims, and what appears to be a prideful and arrogant ignorance. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, will you be returning to the subject of the OP at some point? 

My Response

Jon Clark, are you willing to correct the errors in your thinking and be open and receptive to consider information that goes against your own presupposed viewpoints, and willing to correct any false information based on what is sound and reasonable when it comes to the evidence. 

For instance, you've already made false claims and accused me of arguing from silence. I proved I wasn't and yet you refused to correct y our assertion and continued to make the same accusation so yes, I question your level of competence. 

You placed words in my mouth and misrepresented what I said. A deceptive and manipulative tactic when you knew I was pointing out Paul's support of a bodily resurrection of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15. You claimed I was attempting to point to 1 Corinthians 15 to prove the doctrine of preexistence when that wasn't at all what I stated. 

Shall I continue? Are you going to apologize for lying and making false claims? Or you going to behave like a hypocrite and not hold yourself to the very standards you're using to judge me? 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman no, no need to continue. I have no further questions of you and no further interest in your responses. Thank you for your time. 

My Response

Jon Clark, you just literally proved my point of being above correction, rebuke, and reprove, and displaying an arrogant and prideful ego. Displaying hypocrisy and prone to making false accusations. Yes, your competence and credibility is disturbingly lacking. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman fair enough, I'll take the time to respond to your earlier post later. I don't have time to engage in all the claims you made at the moment. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman 

-- "For instance, you've already made false claims and accused me of arguing from silence."

At the time I accused you of arguing from silence, this is the claim you made: "Paul was well aware of the doctrine of the preexistence as a learned pharisee and jew." You cited some other sources later on, but at the time I said it was an argument from silence, it was exactly that. 

In any case, what Paul did or didn't hear under Pharisaical Judaism has absolutely zero bearing on Romans chapter 9. 

-- "You placed words in my mouth and misrepresented what I said."

Please show us. 

-- "you knew I was pointing out Paul's support of a bodily resurrection of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15."

No sir, neither of us read minds. If you were not citing 1 Corinthians 15 in support of preexistence (which is what we were actually talking about) then I have absolutely no idea why you were citing 1 Corinthians 15, since neither of us were talking about the resurrection. 

My Response

Jon Clark, here you go. Twice you have misrepresented what I said.

Notice that this individual appears to rationalize and justify his claims. He attempts to avoid any sense of accountability and responsibility for his claims, assertions and statements. Furthermore, he actually missed the entirety of what I had posted earlier in the conversation: 

Paul being a Pharisee and educated under Gamaliel, understood this and used this in his epistles regarding the preexistence of Christ and his high Christology. And since Pharisees held to the notion of a physical resurrection, which we see the Apostle Paul defend in 1 Corinthians 15. So, your claim and assertion I am arguing from silence is false and borne out of sheer ignorance and lack of study, further showing your apparent ignorance and illiterate understanding of scripture. 

His seemingly justification and claim of reading minds and notion of not having any idea regarding my referencing of 1 Corinthians 15 is not that difficult to miss. Yet, he seems to have missed it. Establishing his rationalization and justification that his claims stand. When, in reality, we observe they fall quite short of any rational and sound sense of understanding. So, yes, he not only placed words into my mouth, but he also literally misrepresented what I said entirely on a faulty claim and assertion.  

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman those are your words. Please show us me "putting words in your mouth."

My Response

Jon Clark, you claimed I was referring to Paul teaching preexistence in 1 Corinthians 15 when my words specifically show I was pointing out Paul defending the resurrection in relation to his high Christology teaching. 

If you are not familiar with Paul's high Christological view, then you really need to buck up and od more studying and research. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, here is verbatim what I wrote concerning your citation of 1 Corinthians 15: "Ok now we're getting somewhere. In which verses in 1 Corinthians does Paul defend pre-existence." 

That's not a misrepresentation of what you wrote. That's me responding to what you wrote. 

Once again, if you suddenly veered off to defend bodily resurrection when we were talking about a preexistence, then I have absolutely no idea why you did that. Not shockingly, I thought you were talking about pre-existence, since that's what we were talking about. 

The reader may notice that he consistently sticks to his guns that, in his mindset, I am attempting to cite 1 Corinthians 15 as a way to show that Paul is defending the doctrine of Pre-existence. He, yet again, continues to misrepresent what I actually stated, and then lies about not mispresenting what I stated. This speaks to his level of understanding, his level of comprehension, and his level of credibility in this discussion. 

I even pointed out to him the lack of awareness with regards to Paul's High Christological view - this includes Paul's view of Christ as having pre-existed. If Paul did not have an understanding of the theological and doctrinal nature of Pre-existence - then how come it is intertwined within the Pauline Epistle narratives? 

My Response

Jon Clark, Paul's high Christology holds that Jesus preexisted. Preexistence is tied to the transmigration of the soul. Paul being a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel understood the doctrine of preexistence and transmigration of the soul. The pharisees held to the doctrine of a bodily resurrection which Paul defends in 1 Corinthians 15. 

How come this is significant? Because the idea of preexistence and transmigration of the soul is the idea and belief of a soul migrating from one plane of existence to another plane of existence. Paul's high Christology holds this very view where Christ preexisted with the Father. he then, or his spirit, transmigrated to a different plane of existence, mortality. Christ died a physical death, his spirit descended into Hades, abode of the dead, another plane of existence. Christ rose the third day via a bodily resurrection which is another plane of existence since he is now immortal. Paul did not only defend Christ's resurrection he also defends the bodily resurrection of all believers. You would know that if you take the time to actually study these things out. 

 What I am referring here is the difference between transmigration of the soul compared to the understanding of reincarnation. Both hold to similar ideas and connotations. However, transmigration of the soul concerns the spiritual journey of a soul whereas the idea behind reincarnation focuses on the cyclical life and death epochs of a soul (experiencing multiple realities and states of mortality). Furthermore, transmigration of the soul is referred to as metempsychosis that was prevalent within Greek philosophy (and dating much further back to Pythagoras and the religious cult of Ophiris). 

Hence, the reason I pointed out (specifically justifying my mere mention of 1 Corinthians 15) is to show forth that Paul's high Christological view included the notion of not only preexistence, to show that he understood the pattern and idea of a soul's migration from state of existence into another state of existence. This is quite important to understand when we are looking at Romans 9:10-11 and the nature and doctrine of the preexistence. 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman, 

--"Paul's high Christology holds that Jesus preexisted."

The Bible teaches that Jesus preexisted. John chapter 1 makes this abundantly clear. However, this is why Jesus was Gods only begotten Son - because he was unique.  

However, Romans 9 is talking about Isaac's sons.

-- "Paul being a pharisee trained under Gamaliel understood the doctrine of preexistence and transmigration of the soul." 

I'm sure Paul understood a lot of things. However, (yet again) we're talking about what scripture teaches, not what someone things Paul may have heard.

-- "The pharisees held to the doctrine of a bodily resurrection which Paul defends in 1 Corinthians 15." 

Still irrelevant. 

-- "Paul not only defends Christ's resurrection he also defends the bodily resurrection of all believers." 

When will you address my points regarding preexistence and Isaac's sons, from Romans chapter 9?

What is happening here is an individual being quite dismissive. Completely missing the mark on the nature of the discussion and reason the information is being brought up. While he does agree that Paul understood Christ having preexisted, he totally missed the reasoning and rational behind the justification of Paul having understanding of the doctrine of preexistence, the idea of the transmigration of the soul, and how it relates in identifying Paul referring to the doctrine of the preexistence within the pericope of Romans 9.

Furthermore, this individual, again, cherry-picked select phrases to respond to instead of actually dealing with the very context of what the response contains. This is another form of deception and manipulation. Ignoring, or picking certain statements and phrases, responding to them, in an effort to either dismiss or uphold them as a way to maintain one's argument. It is a logical fallacy that further reveals the level of competency and understanding at play here. 

And so, instead of actually responding (which I was doing from my phone and not from my computer) I provided a lengthier response that expounds upon the discussion at hand. 

My Response

Jon Clark, here is what you appear to be focusing on:

Romans 9:10-11 "10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (KJV).

Your blatant attempt to isolate two selective passages from Romans 9 and asking Latter-day Saints how to reconcile with this passage appears to be from your own presupposed and deeply held confirmation bias. First, it is a logical fallacy known as cherry picking. Verse 10 is referring back to vs. 9. What does vs. 9 say? "For this is the word of promise, at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son."

When we put Romans 9:9-11 together, Paul is not only referring to Rebeccah, but he is also referring to Sarah. Who is Sarah? Abraham's Wife. How come this is significant? Well, Paul is referring to Abraham and the visitation of the three angels - one of them Abraham recognized and rant to and bowed down and worshipped. This is in Genesis 18. Paul identifies the individual as the Lord YHWH. What was the word of the promise Paul is referring to? Sarah will bear a son. Isaac. Abraham had two sons born unto him - Ishmael from Hagar (who was actually an Egyptian Princess of the Egyptian Royal Court and not actually a slave - Sarah and Hagar were friends). Isaac had two sons from Rebekah - Esau and Jacob.

This is quite important to understand because we now need to go further up into Romans 9 to fully comprehend what Paul was talking about here. This takes us to Romans 9:1-2. So, what does it say?

"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have a great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: WHO ARE ISRAELITES; TO WHOM PERTAINETH THE ADOPTION, AND THE GLORY, AND THE COVENANTS, AND THE GIVING OF THE LAW, AND THE SERVICE OF GOD, AND THE PROMISES; WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS, AND OF WHOM AS CONCERNING THE FLESH CHRIST CAME, WHO IS OVER ALL, GOD BLESSED FOREVER. AMEN." (cf. Romans 9:1-5)

Did you catch that? Who is Paul referring to? His kinsmen - the Jews. The Israelites. What is he saying? He is recounting the promised blessings that were given by way of covenant through Abraham, Isaac, and then Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel after he wrestled with YHWH).

Now, Paul goes on in vv. 6-8: "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abrham, are they all children: but, IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED THAT IS, THEY WHICH ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD; BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE COUNTED FOR THE SEED."

It seems Paul is a bit cryptic here - however, we do know from his other epistles and writings - he is referring to the Gentiles as being the children of the promise and counted for the seed.

This sets us up for what Paul says regarding the "Word of Promise" given unto Abraham and Sarah, and then given also unto Isaac and Rebekkah.

Romans 9:11 actually proves Paul's understanding of the Pre-existence because he is qualifying that prior to the birth of Jacob and Esau- or prior to them having any ability to do anything good or evil, God's election may stand in how God has chosen Jacob over Esau.

Now, Paul has in mind Deuteronomy 32:8-9 that reads (according to the LXX and not the Masoretic text because the Masoretic Text had not existed in Paul's time).

"When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance." 

Comparing this to the Qumran text of the same passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls:

"7 Remember the days of old. Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the children of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel God" (Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q37 Deuteronomy)."

We also have this commentary contained within the Jewish Publication Society of the Jewish Study Bible regarding Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

"8: Most High, or "Elyon" is the formal title of the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief de3ity (P 82:1, 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El's title to Israel's God ... Portion: this and the following term reflect ancient estate law: Israel is God's special inheritance."

The commentary goes on to say that Israel is reserved for God himself - or YHWH.

Now, here comes the reason I mentioned the Babylonian Talmud and the Bereshit Rahab.

"The Gemara provides sources for the notion that each of these phenomena was created before the world was. Torah was created before the world was created, as it is written: “The Lord made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22), which, based on the subsequent verses, is referring to the Torah. Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God,” and it is written immediately afterward: “You return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man” (Psalms 90:2–3). The Garden of Eden was created before the world was created, as it is written: “And God planted the Garden of Eden in the east [mikedem]” (Genesis 2:8). The term: In the east [mikedem] is interpreted in the sense of: Before [mikodem], i.e., before the world was created. Gehenna was created before the world was created, as it is written: “For its hearth is ordained of old” (Isaiah 30:33). The hearth, i.e., Gehenna, was created before the world was created. The Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Sanctuary” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written in the chapter discussing the Messiah: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. This baraita states that Gehenna was created before the world was created and not during twilight before the first Shabbat." (Peachim 54a:1)

And the Bereshit Rahab says this:

"In the beginning of God's creating..." - Six things preceded the creation of the world; some of them were created and some of them were decided to be created. The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created. How do we know the Torah was? As it says (Proverbs 8:22): "God made me at the beginning of his way." How do we know the Throne of Glory was? As it says (Psalms 93:2): "Your throne is established as of old etc." The Patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah were decided to be created. How do we know the Patriarchs were? As it says (Hosea 9:10): "Like grapes in the wilderness etc." How do we know Israel was? As it says (Psalms 74:2): "Remember your congregation, whom you purchased from old." How do we know the Temple was? As it says (Jeremiah 17:12): "Your throne of glory, on high from the beginning etc." How do we know the name of the Messiah was? As it says (Psalms 72:17): "May his name exist forever etc. [his name shall be Yinnon as long as the sun]." Rabbi Ahavah said in the name of Rabbi Ze'ira: Even repentance was, as it says (Psalms 90:2): "Before the mountains were birthed," and at the same time (Psalms 90:3), "You turned man to contrition etc." However, I do not know which was first--if the Torah preceded the Throne of Glory or the Throne of Glory preceded the Torah. Rabbi Abba Bar Cahana said: The Torah preceded the Throne of Glory, as it says (Proverbs 8:22): "God made me at the beginning of his way, the first of his works of old." This is before that of which it is written (Psalms 93:2): "Your throne is established as of old" 

Six things came into existence or were created. The Throne of God, the Law (Torah) The Patriarchs of the Old Testament (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob: Which signifies the doctrine of Pre-existence right there) Israel, the Temple of God, the NAME OF THE MESSIAH, Repentance.

All came before the creation of the world. Either they were created or were decided to be created.

Paul had full understanding of this as a Learned Pharisee and Jew. This was prevalent within the first Century Jews. Paul having been a well-affluent and educated Pharisee understood this. And we see this in Romans 9:10-11. Paul is teaching the doctrine of pre-existence.

Now, I provided my evidence. I am not arguing from SIlence as you falsely accused me of and consistently accused me of. I presented my evidence, I substantiated sound and reasonable reconciliation of the text to the doctrine of pre-existence.

Now, it is up to you to determine whether or not you are willing and humble enough to offer up a public apology for being deceptive, manipulative, and bearing false witness.

The response that follows is regarding the first part of my post (Facebook only allows so many characters and therefore the lengthy post was split into two separate postings). 

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman -- "Here is what you appear to be focusing on:

Romans 9:10-11 "10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (KJV)"

That's correct. That's why the second sentence of my very first post reads as follows:

"For people who believe this doctrine, how do you explain Romans 9:10-11"

-- "Your blatant attempt to isolate two selective passages from Romans 9"

At no point did I in any way suggest these passages should in any way at any time be isolated from the rest of scripture. Stop making up accusations.

-- "and asking Latter-day Saints how to reconcile with this passage appears to be from your own presupposed and deeply held confirmation bias" 

In my first sentence of my first post I described Mormon doctrine as I understand it. In the second sentence I asked how that could be reconciled with the cited passage. I think I was pretty up-front in what I was asking.

-- "First, it is a logical fallacy known as cherry picking"

Wrong. I cited the verses that were relevant to the question I was asking. I didn't

cite verse 10 for the same reason I did not cite Genesis 1 or Revelation 22 - because they were not relevant to the question I was asking. Stop making up accusations.

[moving past a few paragraphs here because they again have no bearing on my question]

-- "Romans 9:11 actually proves Paul's understanding of the Pre-existence because he is qualifying that prior to the birth of Jacob and Esau- or prior to them having any ability to do anything good or evil, God's election may stand in how God has chosen Jacob over Esau"

Please help us understand where in Romans 9:11 we see any notion of any pre-existence. As I said in my original post (and have said multiple times since), the logic of Romans 9:11 only holds up if and when we believe people do not have the ability to do good or bad prior to their birth.

[moving past more text that has no bearing on my question]

-- "The Gemara provides sources..."

Do you believe the Talmud to be God-breathed scripture? I do not.

It becomes quite apparent Jon Clark consistently claims that this writer has made "false accusations" with regard to the attitude and manner in which he is approaching this discussion. His first claim of not isolating the passages is dishonest. After all, he does consistently point to the fact that the passage in question, and the only one up for discussion, is that of Romans 9:10-11. He is the one forcing to isolate the passages and negating any discussion of the relevant passages previous to them. Therefore, he is guilty of cherry picking - it is not a false accusation, or one that is made it. It is quite observable here. 

It also becomes quite apparent that he is not open, nor receptive, to any additional sources and evidenced that may actually shed light on how Paul understood the doctrine of Pre-existence as a Pharisee (by which he utilized the terms that Pharisaical Judaism is not Biblical). Furthermore, he ago is quite dismissive of any relevant sources that are of authoritative value in understanding the particular pericope of Romans 9. 

Yet, how does he respond to the second part of the lengthy response this writer provided?

Jon Clark

Timothy Berman -- "And the Bereshit Rahab says this"

Do you hold these writings to be God-breathed scripture? I do not.

-- "Paul had full understanding of this as a Learned Pharisee and Jew"

As I've already stated, I have no interest in (nor was my question regarding) what Paul may have learned from Pharisaical Judaism. My question, as already stated, was how Mormon theology reconciles with my cited passage from Romans chapter 9.

-- "Paul is teaching the doctrine of pre-existence"

No, we see that he's actually refuting it. As I've shown several times now.

-- "I presented my evidence, I substantiated sound and reasonable reconciliation of the text to the doctrine of pre-existence"

Yes, I believe you have presented the very best evidence you have at hand. Thank you.

-- "Now, it is up to you to determine whether or not you are willing and humble enough to offer up a public apology for being deceptive, manipulative, and bearing false witness"

Stop making up accusations.

My Response

Jon Clark You stated: "Do you hold these writings to be God-breathed scripture? I do not."

My response: Instead of actually addressing the actual content of what I presented, you pretty much engage in an attitude and behavior of dismissiveness. Of course, this stems from the apparent confirmation bias you are appearing to hold and lord over anyone who dares to question and provide sound and reasonable responses to your claims and assertions.

The Babylonian Talmud and the Bereshit Rahab are considered just as authoritative as the Scriptures. Bereshit Rahab is Rabbinic commentary on the Book of Genesis. The Babylonian Talmud is considered to be of authoritative value as well. 

You stated: "As I've already stated, I have no interest in (nor was my question regarding) what Paul may have learned from Pharisaical Judaism. My question, as already stated, was how Mormon theology reconciles with my cited passage from Romans chapter 9."

My response: Per your initial original post and question: "My understanding is that Mormon doctrine teaches that souls are eternal and live in a pre-existence prior to birth.

For people who believe this doctrine, how do you explain Romans 9:10-11:
"And not only that, but there was also Rebekah, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls."

You are literally asking how Latter-day Saints reconcile Romans 9:10-11 with the doctrine of Pre-existence. You appear to be moving the goal post to escape any responsibility of a sound and reasonable response because it does not fit within your Eisegesis interpretation - meaning it does not fit within the scope of your own bias and prejudicial interpretation that you are reading into the text. This goes back to my claim against you that you appear to lack any competence in understanding the scriptures and therefor appear to be quite illiterate in understanding and comprehending any exegesis attempt to provide understanding. Exegesis being where one allows the text itself to provide the proper understanding and interpretation.

You stated: "No, we see that he's actually refuting it. As I've shown several times now."

My response: Then provide sound and reasonable evidence to consider how he refutes the doctrine of pre-existence by properly utilizing Exegesis and not the typical Calvinistic Eisegesis interpretation. And yes, that is how you appear to be interpreting this text - from a Calvinistic perspective - I know because I was a Calvinist when I was an apostate for 15 some years and defended Reformed Theology. So, I am more than familiar with the argument you are attempting to force into this passage.

You stated: "Yes, I believe you have presented the very best evidence you have at hand. Thank you."

My response: Not what I have at hand, from what I have given over to thoroughly studied regarding the doctrine of Pre-existence, transmigration of the souls, and how these fits within the Biblical narrative and teachings. By the way - are you aware that Augustine held to some notion of a Pre-existence himself?

"In order to illustrate what he means by “seeing things by ourselves” “in the light of truth”, Augustine often cites the example of the Socratic maieutic dialogue (De magistro 40; cf. De immortalitate animae 6; De trinitate 12.24), and in some passages of his early work he seems to subscribe to the Platonic doctrine of recollection (familiar to him from Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.57) in such a way as to imply the preexistence of the soul (Soliloquia 2.35, retracted in Retractationes 1.4.4; De immortalitate animae 6; De quantitate animae 34, retracted in Retractationes 1.8.2). It is difficult to tell whether the early Augustine literally believed in recollection and preexistence (Karfíková 2017; O’Daly 1987: 70–75; 199–207), not least because he was aware that some Neoplatonists interpreted Platonic recollection as an actualization of our ever-present but latent knowledge of the intelligible rather than as a remembrance of our past acquaintance with it (Letter 7.2, cf. Plotinus, Enneads IV.3.25.31–33; O’Daly 1976). If, as in De immortalitate animae 6, recollection is taken to prove the immortality of the soul (as it did in the Phaedo), it is hard to see how preexistence should not be implied. In any event, it is imprecise to say, as it is sometimes done, that Augustine gave up the theory of recollection because he realized that preexistence was at variance with Christian faith. In De civitate dei (12.14 etc.) Augustine emphatically rejects Platonic-Pythagorean metempsychosis or the transmigration of souls as incompatible with eternal happiness and the economy of salvation, and in De trinitate (12.24) the Meno version of the recollection theory, which implies transmigration, is rejected in favor of illumination. Yet it is a fallacy to claim that recollection entails transmigration. The early Augustine may have believed in preexistence (perhaps simply as a corollary of the immortality of the soul), but there is no evidence that he believed in the transmigration of souls; conversely, his rejection of transmigration did not prevent even the late Augustine from considering preexistence—at least theoretically—an option for the origin of the soul (Letter 143.6 from 412; cf. 6.1 Soul as a Created Being)."

You stated: "Stop making up accusations."

My response: I am not making up accusations. I am pointing out your own attitude and behavior and calling you out on it and holding you accountable for those statements.

YOUR VERY OWN WORDS CONDEMN YOU:

1 - False Accusation from you to me: "-- "Paul was well aware of the doctrine of the pre existence as a learned pharisee and jew" An argument from silence."
You accused me right out of the gate of arguing from silence. I pointed out that you are in error and wrong to do so. Yet, you have consistently insisted I was arguing from silence. Again, here: "-- "So your claim and assertion I am arguing from silence is false and borne out of sheer ignorance and lack of study, further showing your apparent ignorance and illiterate understanding of scripture."

My claim of an argument of silence is because I'm still waiting for a reference that we can read in support of your claim that Paul believed in a pre-existence when he wrote Romans. Please proceed at any point."

Is that not what you said? Is that not what you are accusing me of? And did I actually prove that I was not arguing from Silence and that I did present sound and reasonable evidence for your consideration to prove that Paul was referring to Pre-existence?

Now, what about the behavior and attitude of deception? Well, again, we have your very own observable words that prove I am not making up accusations and I will point it out to you from your latest response to me: "-- "Paul is teaching the doctrine of pre-existence" No, we see that he's actually refuting it. As I've shown several

times now."

So, I can back up what I stated and claim. You have yet to back up anything you have stated and claimed. Instead, you have engaged in manipulative tactics and strategies to disavow any connotation of an honest discussion and refuse to actually address the evidence presented before you. That is considered dishonest, deceptive, and sadly pathetic.

So, where is your evidence? What do you have to bring to the table? And are you going to humble yourself and make a public apology because you have been shown to be inadequate in your discussion here and lacking any understanding. No more games, no more excuses.

Jon Clark

-- "Instead of actually addressing the actual content of what I presented, you pretty much engage in an attitude and behavior of dismissiveness."

Yes. I dismiss man-made doctrine as man-made doctrine. I do not allow it to influence interpretation of legitimate scripture. Do you?

-- "Of course, this stems from the apparent confirmation bias you are appearing to hold and lord over anyone who dares to question and provide sound and reasonable responses to your claims and assertions."

No, that would be me differentiating between scripture and doctrines of men.
-- "The Babylonian Talmud and the Bereshit Rahab are considered just as authoritative as the Scriptures."

Not by me.

-- "You are literally asking how Latter-day Saints reconcile Romans 9:10-11 with the doctrine of Pre-existence"

I agree. That's what I said in my first post.

-- "You appear to be moving the goal post to escape any responsibility of a sound and reasonable response because it does not fit within your Eisegesis interpretation."

The goal post never moved. As I said, you can see what I was writing simply by reading the very first post I wrote.

-- "Then provide sound and reasonable evidence to consider how he refutes the doctrine of pre-existence by properly utilizing Exegesis and not the typical Calvinistic Eisegesis interpretation."

I've already done that more than once. Scroll up.

-- "You accused me right out of the gate of arguing from silence."
I've already addressed this. Scroll up.

What may be noticed here is the continued lack of addressing the context of what this writer provided. Jon Clark appears to continually harp on having addressed the issues. He consistently dismissed any evidence and claim it is not authoritative (which is his burden of proof to address and provide any sound and reasonable as to how it may not be considered authoritative. Saying it is not on par with God breathed scripture is an excuse and cop-out). He also shows a lack of accountability in addressing his own shortcomings and false accusations, yet willingly to point out the errors and make false claims against another individual. 

The problem is, he posted additional commentary (of which I am not able to respond to in the actual group as it appeared I was banned before having to respond to his claims and statements). Hence, the reader sees the screenshots I have captured and provided alongside this commentary and discussion. In doing so - it shows the discussion unfolding, the content and context of the discussion, and the way most Evangelical Christians typically engage Latter-day Saint Christians in conversation. 

Jon Clark

Fred W. Anson pertinent to your OP concerning the behaviour of Mormons, I thought you might appreciate this thread.

I may not have caught it all but so far in this discussion I have been accused of the following:

- Cherry picking

- Not taking time to study

- Being full of myself

- Having a fragile ego

- Being like a petulant child

- Having a lack of competence

- Having prideful and arrogant ignorance

- Placing words in others mouths

- Misrepresentation

- Using deceptive and manipulative tactics

- Lying and making false claims

- Having an arrogant and prideful ego

- Displaying hypocrisy

- Holding deep confirmation bias

- Being sadly pathetic

It's been mildly entertaining. However, as I mentioned above 

Timothy Berman, we do have a group rule concerning personally directed comments. Given the above list I think I've been more than patient and you'll need to change your approach. Now.

Notice that he attempts to call me out here with regard the statements this writer had made. Following the conversation, these are based on actual observations of Jon Clark's manner and attitude in approaching and engaging in the discussion. Notice, also, that I had already called him out on it - yet he refuses to acknowledge and take full accountability and responsibility for violating the very same group rules he attempts to impose on any person. This is the reason for this writer calling him out on his own hypocrisy. Throughout his trope - he is guilty of doing exactly that - making personal and directed comments. Yet, refusing to hold himself accountable to the very same standards he expects others to follow. 

Yet, he was not apparently finished displaying toxic narcissistic traits in his discussion. 

Jon Clark

So after a multitude of personal attacks and narrative, Mr. Berman's strongest argument seemed to be:

- As a trained Pharisee, Paul would have been aware of the doctrine of pre-existence

- Therefore Romans 9:11 is teaching pre-existence

And Mr. Berman appears to have removed himself from the group.

No, I did not actually remove myself from the Group. Since there are only three admins and four moderators for the group (Jon Clark being one of the admins), one of them banned me from the group. I no longer have access to the group and unable to go in and provide any additional commentary. 

This typically happens in these types of forums and discussion groups. The moment the individual positing a question, evidence is provided to show error in their perspective, understanding, and interpretation, they quickly remove the person from the Group. Not before engaging in bearing false witness and making additional claims and assertions that are demonstratively false. 

So, what does Jon Clark say? Well, see for yourself with the comment that follows. 

Yes, 67 comments and you feel you have not yet seen a single explanation of why the logic presented in Romans 9:11 rests on the reader to understand that no one can do either good or bad prior to birth. 

This is exactly the reason I raised the issue of him moving the Goal post (and which he has demonstratively affirmed). That his original post was about how to reconcile the Latter-day Saint Doctrine of preexistence with that of Romans 9:10-11. Now, he appears to ask what is the understanding of how one can do good or bad prior to their birth? 

I suspect that the individual who may have banned and blocked this writer from the LDS & Bible-believing Christian discussion group was Jon himself. So that he can continue making his false claims, assertions, without anyone pointing out any flaws or errors in his perspective and thinking. Unfortunately, this is quite typical of the attitude and behavior pattern Latter-day Saints see within these types of online forums. Individuals, like Jon Clark, will ask a question and when information is presented, they dismiss it, disagree with it and do not offer any additional sound and reasonable understanding for consideration. They cry foul when there is no need to cry foul, and then establish expectations on others that they themselves have already been observed in violating and engaging in. 

The reason he has not seen any single explanation is because he is lying to himself, he is lying to those who have access to this group and are able to see the conversation (as provided here) in its entirety. He can't escape his own words and comments.