What is meant by being "grafted in" and "cut off?"

Well, I'm not taking the analogy anywhere, I'm just asking questions about your conclusion. I now understand that you see the tree as true Israel, Christ as the root and the Spirit as the sustenance, but you think it goes too far to think that Paul is saying men are attached and then cut off of this tree/root/sustenance.

I actually don't have a problem referring to the tree as true Israel, because as I stated earlier, I believe the tree represent the means through which God reveals himself. Just as man needs a conduit (prophets, scripture, apostles, church etc) by which God communicates to us, so too a branch needs a tree and root to receive its sustenance.

So, when Paul speaks of Jews being cut off, he is saying that they have been refusing his holding out his hands all day long (Rom 10:21), thus they have had the revelation but have refused it and grown hard to it, so its being cut off. No more revelation. This is why Israel is blinded from the gospel (spirit of stupor, parabolic language). But, this is a temporary hardening. They can be provoked to jealousy by the Gentiles and come to faith (Rm 11:14). They can leave their unbelief and be grafted back in (join the church) and here God's revelation again.

The Gentiles have not been getting the special revelation of God all these years, but now it is being sent to them (grafted in to the revelation by which they too can enter covenant), and they are hardened to it, "they will listen." (Acts 28:28) But if they do what Israel did and rebel against the revelation they too might be cut off from the revelation (tree).

Do you believe its a permanent judgement meant for non-elect ones? Or do you believe as kyredneck stated earlier that being cut off is a merciful act of discipline which could lead some to salvation?

 

Actually, I stated very early in this discussion that nations are made up of individuals, thus I have no problem with us applying these concepts to individuals as they relate to the nations being addressed.

So, lets take an individual Jew through the process.

1. God sends him prophets, priests, kings and scriptures...He holds out his hands to him (Rm. 10:21) desiring to gather him but he is unwilling (Matt 23:37). =This BRANCH is grafted in at this point.

2. His heart grows calloused and hardened to the revelation of God.

3. God sends the messiah, but keeps this Jew in darkness (hardens him so he can't see the obvious truth). = This BRANCH is cut off from the revelation

4. The Jew sees the change in the Gentile believers and is provoked by envy. His will is provoked and he examines the truth of the gospel. He believes and is grafted back in. = This "natural" BRANCH is grafted back into the tree

See, I'm fine with taking this individually. Why wouldn't I be?

And the reason I have no problem with the tree being viewed as "true Israel" is because Israel is the means through which God revealed himself for generations, and as I stated, I believe the tree represents the revelation by which men can relate (covenant) with God.

It may appear that way for you because you have grown so accustom to interpreting this passage from your perspective. I assure you though, it looks as "forced" and stretched to those from the other side.

I'm not sure how this relates to my view.

I agree. Paul, like the Jew in the example above was hardened and "cut off" while he was still Saul. But, a remnant from Israel was specifically chosen by God to take the message of reconciliation to the rest of the world. Paul was one of those Jews. God lifted his hardening and used effectual means (not some irresistible inward calling, but outward clear signs) to ensure his messenger would take this message to the Gentiles.

Proof that God effectually calls his divinely appointed messengers (using outward means) is not proof that God effectually calls certain individuals in their audience (through secret inward means).

Even the branches who are cut off?

I would say that ingrafted branches are potential believers, while cut off branches are in rebellion and need to be provoked.

 

I'm not sure you really understand my conclusion. I'm not EQUATING the church or Israel with divine revelation. I'm saying that these things (church/Israel) are the means through which God reveals himself. This finding is not unique to me either. Even Gill, a noted Calvinistic scholar, wrote:

So, while his soteriology is clearly different, he too sees the tree in same respect that I have presented.

But if they were cut off, that means they were once attached, which throws a wrench in that so called "straightforward reading of the passage."

That is not what I said. Please at least attempt to understand my point of view, even if you disagree with it. Israel had been receiving God's special revelation and many rebelled against it for generations and grew calloused, so he binds them over to be hardened/blinded/cut off, and sends the message to the Gentiles "because they will listen." (Acts 28:28 <--- Read this). Jews are thus being hardened or "cut off," while Gentiles are being grafted in.

I'm presenting a scholarly non-Calvinistic rendering of Romans 11 (some of which is more consistent with Calvinistic scholars than your view); and you resort to patronizing and demeaning retorts? Really? Is that necessary? This reveals a lack of maturity and objectiveness on your part and does nothing to further our discussion.

 

Sure, any analogy can go beyond its given intent. I agree with that assertion. And the idea of the preexistence of Christ is CLEARLY not the intent of the analogy, so this would be a good example of taking the analogy too far. But, the concept of branches being cut off this tree is not nearly so far fetched considering that it actually says they could be cut off and some had indeed been cut off. How that would even come close to correlating with the example of Christ, the root, not preexisting is beyond me.

By your interpretation, they couldn't have been really cut off from the tree because it would be taking the analogy too far to even suggest that they were really ever attached to begin with. I'm sorry, but that is not willing to read the clear intent of the analogy. What else could be meant regarding being cut off if it doesn't imply they were once attached? What are they cut off of if not the tree?

 

First, allow me to thank you for providing my actual quote. I think that helps the discussion and it sure beats the generalized accusations. I apologize if I wasn't clear. But I think you will see and understand my intent if you look a little more closely at the quote you provided:

Notice the sentence I emboldened. It says the revelation CAME THROUGH Israel/Church. As I'm sure you know, the word 'through' is a indication of the MEANS by which something comes. That was what I was intending to communicate, if it was unclear, I apologize. Maybe you understand now?

In post 43 I also expounded saying, "I actually don't have a problem referring to the tree as true Israel, because as I stated earlier, I believe the tree represent the means through which God reveals himself. Just as man needs a conduit (prophets, scripture, apostles, church etc) by which God communicates to us, so too a branch needs a tree and root to receive its sustenance." And it was to this quote you accused me of equating "the Church or the Nation with divine revelation." I think you just misunderstood, but now hopefully you are understanding.

Is this necessary? I'm trying to have a civil conversation about teachings of scripture with a fellow brother in Christ. Can we treat each other with the love and respect those scriptures clearly teach us to employ with each other?

Then maybe we aren't understanding each other very well. You are very clearly saying that the tree doesn't represent the special revelation of God and the gospel would be the foremost of all God's revelations, yet Gill clearly states that there being cut off is in reference to the "gospel church" and goes on to say: "the Gospel was preached to them, they despise it, contradicted, and blasphemed it; so that it pleased God to take it wholly away from them,[what is he taking away from them? The gospel, which is the special revelation of God] when they might be truly said to be, "as branches broken off"; which phrase seems to be borrowed from ( Jeremiah 11:16 ) ; they were withered, lifeless, and hopeless, being cast off by God, and neglected by his ministers, the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation [again, what has been removed from those who are "cut off"? THE GOSPEL, the REVELATION OF GOD and the MEANS of SALVATION.]

Well the POTENTIAL of them being CUT OFF is presented by the analogy, not me: "21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off."

Now, either those INDIVIDUALS who have been grafted in have the POTENTIAL of being cut off, or Paul is bluffing rending this analogy and warning meaningless.

These are confusing matters and I understand that misunderstanding will happen, but if we are objectively attempting to engage with each other in an honest discussion I think we can better understand each other's perspective. Despite your perception, I have not contradicted myself, you have simply misunderstood me. I will attempt to be more clear if you will attempt to read ALL that I say and try to fully understand my point before prematurely drawing conclusions.

Blessings to you.

 

The gospel is an "operation" of the church and as Gill explains, that is what has been removed from those cut off. How is what he says in agreement with your view?

We agree on this point. Why would you think we wouldn't?

So, you disagree with Gill on this point, right?

Are you calling Gill's words "unwarranted speculation?" I just want to be clear before you bail on our discussion again.

 

Nothing is being turned around Aaron. I quoted him directly and he clearly states that those being cut off have "the Gospel (means of revelation) being removed from them," which is the point I was seeking to prove in providing the Gill quote. Not to mention, the point you ridiculed me for making.

And if you read back through my posts you will see that is not even a point of contention with me. I affirmed that the tree was representative of Israel and the church. I just went on to affirm that those are the means through which God reveals himself to man so as to reconcile and relate to them. The gospel is a means of reconciliation and those who are "cut off" are being blinded from that revelation.

An entity with what purpose? To reveal God's means of relating to man, maybe? Again, I've never disputed the tree as being representative of the entity called "the church," "true Israel" or "the gospel church" because all those represent the same thing...the "entity" through which God has chosen to make himself known to man...by the Law through prophets in the OT and by the Gospel through apostles and the church in the NT.

Are you suggesting that I've made the argument that the tree is representative of "geo-political Israel?" Are you sure you are engaging with my posts, or just your perception of what you think I believe?

I understand perfectly what Gill is saying. I wrote a dang dissertation on the guy. I'm not, nor have I ever, claimed we agree on the soteriological points. Nor have I argued that he disagrees with your points on the matters you have raised here. I ONLY quoted him to show his perspective on what an individual is being cut off from so as to prove that your ridicule of my perspective on that point regarding revelation was unwarranted.

How else can you take Gill's quote, "the Gospel was preached to them, they despise it, contradicted, and blasphemed it; so that it pleased God to take it wholly away from them?"