Any Calvinist willing to walk through Romans 11 with me?

[Skandelon]

The Jews on the whole have been cut off from the promises and the benefits of salvation, i.e., the favor of God:

The promises and benefits of salvation is eternal life. So, are you saying the Jews have been cut off from eternal life and thus all who have been cut off or hardened are cut off unto certain condemnation without hope of salvation? If so, how do you explain where Paul says that some of those hardened/cut off Jews might be provoked to envy and saved? And that some of those Jews who were cut off could leave their unbelief and be grafted back in?

 

[canadyjd]

Can you explain to me how God can cut off the Jewish nation "generally" while no individual Jews are being cut off specifically? As Calvinists alway argue when talking about Romans 9, what is true of the group must be true of the individuals that make up that group, right?

I don't know what "Calvinists always argue" about Romans 9. I am addressing the passage you want to address.

I don't believe this analogy was meant to convey what you are saying. Paul wasn't talking about individuals being cut off or grafted in. He was speaking generally of Jews and Gentiles. That is very clear from the context.

But it doesn't just speak of the natural branches being cut off, it also speaks of those being cut off being grafted back in and it speaks of those who have been grafted in as being cut off......

Do you believe the individual Jews that were "cut off" in the 1st century, and every century since, and have been long dead in unbelief, will be resurrected and grafted back into the tree?

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

I don't believe this analogy was meant to convey what you are saying. Paul wasn't talking about individuals being cut off or grafted in. He was speaking generally of Jews and Gentiles. That is very clear from the context.

I understand that, but I'm just trying to understand how God can cut off and graft back in a group generally speaking without specific individuals within that group being cut off and grafted back in?

If I were to make a statement generally about white people such as, "White people can't dance." We both would understand that generally and not specifically, right? But we would know that the support for that general statement comes from the fact that there are many individual white people who don't dance well. So, the general statement of the inability to dance is supported by many specific individuals who are unable to dance.

In the same manner, if Paul speaks of Jews being cut off and grafted back in, then there MUST be some individuals who were cut off and grafted back in, right? If Paul speaks about Gentiles being grafted in and possibly cut off then there must be individuals with the Gentile group who are grafted in who might be cut off, right? Please explain how speaking generally doesn't effect individuals who make up those general groups?

Do you believe the individual Jews that were "cut off" in the 1st century, and every century since, and have been long dead in unbelief, will be resurrected and grafted back into the tree?

No, if a man dies in unbelief he is condemned. Why do you ask?

 

[kyredneck]

The promises and benefits of salvation is eternal life.....

I do not speak as a Calvinist here. I speak as an OLD SCHOOL Baptist that makes a clear distinction between eternal salvation and gospel salvation. Calvinists do not make such a distinction. This is where the Old Baptists and Calvinists differ. Confusion arises concerning the monergistic and synergistic aspects of our salvation when this distinction is not made and the two are clumped together into one. Eternal salvation equals eternal life, is a one time event, and is monergistic. Gospel salvation is of this time world, is an ongoing affair throughout the believers life, is synergistic, and has great benefits and holds great promise for those that please Him.

So, are you saying the Jews have been cut off from eternal life.....

No. And I don't know where you've even gotten that idea from what I've written.

 

[canadyjd]

I understand that, but I'm just trying to understand how God can cut off and graft back in a group generally speaking without specific individuals within that group being cut off and grafted back in?.....

You are asking a question that this particular passage was not intended to address. Paul, through Holy Spirit, isn't attempting to teach us something about individuals being "cut off" and "grafted in". That is not the purpose of the passage.

There are many other passages of scripture that address the quesition of personal salvation and perseverence.

No, if a man dies in unbelief he is condemned. Why do you ask?

Because it illustrates the fact that Paul is speaking in general terms, not specific terms.

11:23 "And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again."

Now, we know the hardness is not lifted until after the fulness of the Gentiles comes (which has been about 2000 years and counting). So, if you maintain Paul is speaking of specific Jews during the 1st century being cut off and losing their salvation, then you know they have died long ago in unbelief.

Therefore, Paul cannot be speaking of specific Jews in v. 23 being "cut off and grafted back in", but of Jews in general.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

You are asking a question that this particular passage was not intended to address. Paul, through Holy Spirit, isn't attempting to teach us something about individuals being "cut off" and "grafted in". That is not the purpose of the passage.

There are many other passages of scripture that address the quesition of personal salvation and perseverence.Because it illustrates the fact that Paul is speaking in general terms, not specific terms.

I'm not claiming that this passage is about personal salvation and perseverance. I actually agree with you that Paul is speaking generally about two groups (Jews and Gentiles), the difference is that I believe what is true of the group, generally speaking, must be true of individuals within that group. How can that not be the case?

Now, we know the hardness is not lifted until after the fulness of the Gentiles comes (which has been about 2000 years and counting).

Many different scholars on both side of this debate interpret this differently. I agree with those who teach that this is in reference to God's desire to establish the gentiles within his church before the Jews so that the Jews wouldn't try to keep them out (due to bigotry and Judizing demands). Once the Gentiles were established, which I believe Paul thought would be accomplished in his time, then the Jews might be provoked to envy and saved.

So, if you maintain Paul is speaking of specific Jews during the 1st century being cut off and losing their salvation, then you know they have died long ago in unbelief.

As I explained earlier, I don't believe the tree represents salvation. I believe like John Gill that it represents the Gospel Church...or the means by which men are saved. The tree is the means through which the branch received the water and food. Israel was the branch in the tree that was receiving the special revelation of God all these years. They rejected it and were rebellious (generally speaking) and thus they were cut off, meaning they no longer can see and hear God's revelation (food and water) by which they can enter his salvation. The Gentiles are now being granted entrance by hearing the gospel, they are being grafted into the tree and are receiving the water and food of life by which they MIGHT be saved.

 

[Skandelon]

I do not speak as a Calvinist here. I speak as an OLD SCHOOL Baptist that makes a clear distinction between eternal salvation and gospel salvation. Calvinists do not make such a distinction. This is where the Old Baptists and Calvinists differ.

This is new to me. If I wanted to study it further who would you recommend I read?

 

[canadyjd]

I'm not claiming that this passage is about personal salvation and perseverance. I actually agree with you that Paul is speaking generally about two groups (Jews and Gentiles), the difference is that I believe what is true of the group, generally speaking, must be true of individuals within that group. How can that not be the case?

You are speculating beyond the intent of the passage. You haven't plainly stated, as yet, why focusing of the "individuals" is so crucial to your understanding the passage.

The Gentiles are now being granted entrance by hearing the gospel, they are being grafted into the tree and are receiving the water and food of life by which they MIGHT be saved.

You have emphasized "MIGHT be saved". Perhaps you could show me from chap. 11 where Paul says Gentiles (or anyone else) "MIGHT be saved"?

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

You are speculating beyond the intent of the passage. You haven't plainly stated, as yet, why focusing of the "individuals" is so crucial to your understanding the passage.

Uh? I'm just trying to understand how something can be true generally speaking about a group but not true about individuals with that group. That is all. Can you give me an analogy or something where we use general terms about groups of people but it really doesn't apply to any specific individual? I just don't understand how that can be the case.

Anyone else reading this who can help answer this or ask it more clearly, I welcome any input.

You have emphasized "MIGHT be saved". Perhaps you could show me from chap. 11 where Paul says Gentiles (or anyone else) "MIGHT be saved"?

14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

[canadyjd]

Uh? I'm just trying to understand how something can be true generally speaking about a group but not true about individuals with that group. That is all.

I haven't said it isn't true of individuals within the group. I have repeatedly stated that the purpose is of the passage is not to focus on individuals within the group specifically, but on the groups (Jews and Gentiles) generally. By focusing on the individual, you are muddying the waters of the analogy, which leads to wrong conclusions about the analogy.

Can you give me an analogy or something where we use general terms about groups of people but it really doesn't apply to any specific individual? I just don't understand how that can be the case.

You keep missing the point. We don't seem to be getting very far on this walk together in Romans 11.:laugh:

If you want to make a point about the significance of the individuals as opposed to the groups (and why the passage justifies such an interpretation), just say it.

14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

The "some of them" is referring to Jews, not Gentiles. I still don't see the words "MIGHT be saved".

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

I haven't said it isn't true of individuals within the group.

So, it is true of the individuals within the group? Ok good.

So, individuals within the Jews have been cut off from the tree, right?
Some individuals who were cut off are grafted back in, right?
Some individuals within the Gentiles have been grafted in who are later cut off, right?

I have repeatedly stated that the purpose is of the passage is not to focus on individuals within the group specifically, but on the groups (Jews and Gentiles) generally. By focusing on the individual, you are muddying the waters of the analogy, which leads to wrong conclusions about the analogy.

I think you mean that it doesn't support your conclusions if there are actual individuals within the group who are cut off and grafted back in, right?

You keep missing the point.

What point? That God has cut off the Jews and says they can be grafted back in, but no individual Jew was actually cut off and grafted back in?

What point is there if no individuals within the groups are actually experiencing the cutting off and grafting back in?

If you want to make a point about the significance of the individuals as opposed to the groups (and why the passage justifies such an interpretation), just say it.The "some of them" is referring to Jews,

You said either group in your question.

I still don't see the words "MIGHT be saved".

Its implied in that some of the Jew might be provoked to envy and thus saved. And in that God is showing mercy to all those who have been bound over to sin.

 

[kyredneck]

This is new to me. If I wanted to study it further who would you recommend I read?

Google it.

End of dialog.

 

[Skandelon]

Google it.

End of dialog.

Revealing....

 

[canadyjd]

So, it is true of the individuals within the group? Ok good.So, individuals within the Jews have been cut off from the tree, right?

That is not what the passage is saying. It is saying the Jews in general have been cut off. If you focus on the "individual", you come to improper conclusions that the passage is not teaching.

Some individuals who were cut off are grafted back in, right?

No, that is a wrong conclusion based on the improper focus on the individuals. I'll explain once again.

Those Jews that are "cut of" for unbelief over these many centuries have long ago died in unbelief. Based on your own statements, they cannot be grafted again into the tree.

Now, those Jews who are alive when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in may indeed be grafted in to the tree. But it would be an improper conclusion to suggest they had lost their salvation and then regained it. That is not the purpose nor the teaching of the passage.

Some individuals within the Gentiles have been grafted in who are later cut off, right?

No, that is a wrong conclusion based on an improper focus on the individual.

I think you mean that it doesn't support your conclusions if there are actual individuals within the group who are cut off and grafted back in, right?

My conclusions are based on the context of the passage, which you have acknowledged. Paul is speaking of Jews and Gentiles generally.

Your conclusions are based on speculation concerning individuals, which is not the purpose of the passage, nor is it being taught in the passage.

What point? That God has cut off the Jews and says they can be grafted back in, but no individual Jew was actually cut off and grafted back in?

You are attempting to use the passage to illustrate perseverence of the saints, or a lack thereof, which is not the purpose nor is it the intent of the passage.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

That is not what the passage is saying. It is saying the Jews in general have been cut off.

I know that is what you are saying, but I'm trying to understand how it is possible for the Jews in general to be cut off if there are not individual Jews who are cut off? How can something be true of the whole that is not true of at least some of the parts within that whole?

Can you give me some analogy or situation where this is ever the case?

Your conclusions are based on speculation concerning individuals, which is not the purpose of the passage, nor is it being taught in the passage.
You are attempting to use the passage to illustrate perseverence of the saints, or a lack thereof, which is not the purpose nor is it the intent of the passage.

peace to youraying:

Actually, I've already explained that is not what I'm attempting to do. I agree the intent of the passage is to address these nations generally speaking, but I've never known a case where something is true of the nation is not true of at least some individuals within that nation.

You seem to think Paul's expectation for some of those Jews who have been cut off to be saved is a far distant future hope, but clearly he thinks his own ministry as an apostles to the Gentiles might provoke the hardened Jews to envy and that because of his ministry some might be saved. That is not some far off distant hope or prophecy of the future. That is statement about what he expects to happen very soon.

 

[canadyjd]

I know that is what you are saying, but I'm trying to understand how it is possible for the Jews in general to be cut off if there are not individual Jews who are cut off? How can something be true of the whole that is not true of at least some of the parts within that whole?

Do you believe Romans 11 is teaching that a person can lose their salvation and then regain it or that they can gain salvation and then lose it? That seems to be the conclusion that you are drawing.

If that is true, then we disagree. The passage was not intended to teach such a thing.

You seem to think Paul's expectation for some of those Jews who have been cut off to be saved is a far distant future hope, but clearly he thinks his own ministry as an apostles to the Gentiles might provoke the hardened Jews to envy and that because of his ministry some might be saved. That is not some far off distant hope or prophecy of the future. That is statement about what he expects to happen very soon.

Paul's hope is for the Jews, generally, to be grafted back into the tree at some point in the future.... when the fullness of the Gentiles has occurred. He doesn't give a specific time for that.

He does, however, acknowledge those Jews that are part of the "remnant" that had already recieved salvation by faith (himself included).

Again, the point of the analogy is not that specific individuals lose their salvation and then regain it, or that those that gain it can lose it.

Is that what you believe the passage is saying? If so, then we are going to disagree.

At this point, we seem to be going in circles. Is there any other part of Romans 11 you want to discuss, or is this the only point you wanted to make?

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

Do you believe Romans 11 is teaching that a person can lose their salvation and then regain it or that they can gain salvation and then lose it?

No, I explained that twice now. I don't believe that the tree represents salvation. I believe it represents God's revelation. Israel was chosen to receive the special revelation of God (via prophets, commandments etc). Now, the special revelation is going to the Gentiles (via the apostle...the gospel).

Israel is being cut off or blinded from the gospel, which means they are cut off from the tree. The tree is the means that a branch gets water and nutrients and for years that was going to Israel, but now it is going to the Gentiles.

So, to be cut off from the special revelation of God doesn't mean you loose your salvation, it means you stop getting his revelations. To be grafted back into the tree means that you can see, hear, and understand God's revealed truth. This truth is the means through which men come to faith.

This is why I have a problem with the idea of thinking of the tree as meaning salvation itself, because it leads to the problem you are having where a group of people (made up of individuals) are being cut off from being saved and grafted back into being saved. That just doesn't work. If, however, the tree is seen as the MEANS through which salvation comes, you don't have that problem.

If that is true, then we disagree. The passage was not intended to teach such a thing.Paul's hope is for the Jews, generally, to be grafted back into the tree at some point in the future.... when the fullness of the Gentiles has occurred. He doesn't give a specific time for that.

No he doesn't, but he certainly seems to think there will be some of those hardened Jews who come to faith as a direct result of his ministry.

 

[kyredneck]

Revealing....

Yeah; about how little you really know.

 

[Skandelon]

Yeah; about how little you really know.

feel better now?

 

[canadyjd]

No, I explained that twice now. I don't believe that the tree represents salvation. I believe it represents God's revelation. Israel was chosen to receive the special revelation of God (via prophets, commandments etc). Now, the special revelation is going to the Gentiles (via the apostle...the gospel).

Well, I don't know how far apart we are. I believe the tree represents the promises given to the patriarchs concerning salvation. You believe it represents the revelation of God.

I base my opinion on chp. 9 v.4 ""who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises..."

And chp. 9 v.8 "that is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

Paul goes on to define these "children of the promise" as coming from both Jew and Gentile.

Israel is being cut off or blinded from the gospel, which means they are cut off from the tree. The tree is the means that a branch gets water and nutrients and for years that was going to Israel, but now it is going to the Gentiles.

So, the Jews are cut off from the revelation of God, generally speaking? I can agree with that.

So, to be cut off from the special revelation of God doesn't mean you loose your salvation, it means you stop getting his revelations. To be grafted back into the tree means that you can see, hear, and understand God's revealed truth. This truth is the means through which men come to faith.

I don't believe it means you "stop getting" His revelations. I agree the Jews are, generally speaking, unable to understand the truth of God's revelation in the person of Jesus as Messiah.

This is why I have a problem with the idea of thinking of the tree as meaning salvation itself, because it leads to the problem you are having where a group of people (made up of individuals) are being cut off from being saved and grafted back into being saved. That just doesn't work. If, however, the tree is seen as the MEANS through which salvation comes, you don't have that problem.

I understand your point.

Is there anything else you want to add to the discussion?

peace to youraying: