Israel -> Law : World -> Faith

Prior to the revelation of the New Testament most of the teachers of that day believed:

Israel saved through the Law:
Israel are the elect and are saved through the law. So, the scope of election was limited to those who were children of Abraham and the means for their salvation was through the keeping of the Law. Israelites (the elect) were granted entrance through the law (means of salvation). But there were some Jews who refused to follow the demands of the law and those teachers of that day wouldn't have believed them to be saved, even though they were of the elect.

Paul, sent by God, comes along and rocks that world view by teaching:

Whosoever saved through faith:
It has been God's plan from the beginning to grant salvation to both the Jew and the Gentiles, but not through the law, but by Grace through faith. So too, even though God has elected to grant everyone entrance through faith that doesn't mean all will come. They can be elected to receive the invite but still chose not to come.

The scope of election has shifted from Israel to the World; and the means through which they are saved has shifted from the law to faith.

(at least their UNDERSTANDING has shifted, it really has never changed because the only people ever declared righteous were declared righteous through faith, not law)

 

Can you restate what you believe my view to be because based on what you said it doesn't appear that you know...

Where did I say they were? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that some didn't even attempt to follow the law or want to be in covenant with God.

Did loyal Jews believe that disavowed Jews would enter God's kingdom, or did they believe that they forfeited that right by rebelling against the law and Jewish tradition?

When did I ever deny that? I'm not sure what dichotomy you have set up in you mind, but I'm not following...

Maybe you are on a train that looks like a boat?

 

I'm not sure what the relevance of this point would be in relation to my post. Please explain.

 

Let me try it this way:

SCOPE + MEANS = RESULT
Israel + Law = Righteousness

versus

Whosoever + Believes = Righteouness


Calvinist seem to think that scriptures which are intended to teach that righteousness is UNATTAINABLE by the first equation are equally UNATTAINABLE by the second equation.

The scope of election (in the perception of the Pharisees of that day) was limited to Israel, and Paul is teaching that this scope has expanded to ingraft the Gentiles, but there is still a condition or means by which this righteousness is applied. That is also shifting (in their perceptions) from the LAW to faith. Calvinists seem to think that scriptures which prove that men can't attain righteousness through the means of the law support their false view that men can't attain righteousness through faith. That is unfounded.

 

According to their perceptions as my parenthetical statements indicated. True saving righteousness has always been attained through faith alone, but many at that time (and even today for that matter) believe one is declared righteous through morality (law).

Paul's effort is to show that the scope of election is not limited to Israel (their false perception). And the means of righteousness is not attained through the law (another false perception).

The false perception of Calvinist, IMO, is that they take verses which prove righteousness through law is unattainable (i.e. Rom 3:10; Rom 8:7 etc) in order to support their incorrect view that righteousness is equally as attainable through faith (apart from a prior irresistible work of regeneration, of course). This is unfounded biblically.

 

Amy, to clarify further let's look at the example of Rahab, the harlot. Clearly, her faith in the little she knew of the Hebrew God was credited to her as righteousness. So, obviously she wasn't declared righteous because she was an elect Jew or because she lived morally according to the law. She was declared righteous according to her faith in the little amount of revelation she had been given.

To suggest that she couldn't be declared righteous due to the law somehow proves she was irresistibly made by God to have faith enough to hide these spies is unfounded, but that is exactly what Calvinists presume upon this text.

Calvinists would teach that had God NOT irresistibly intervened to regenerate Rahab then she COULD NOT have believed God's clear revelation of himself. And on what basis do they make this claim? On the basis that she could NOT save herself through morality. They equate scriptures teaching that men can't save themselves through the law with their erroneous doctrine that men can't be believe in the One who fulfilled the law on their behalf without being irresistibly made to do so.