Romans 11

Then you refute the Gospel accounts of God blinding, hiding, hardening the Jews, lest they be converted and the purposes of the crucifixion be thwarted?

So you agree that at least some WERE hardened?

How does that work with your question above? Are you stating that those hardened had no spiritual ability, for if you do you are in direct conflict with your own scheme.

Aren't you the one who claims folks innate spiritual ability? Why then are you concerned about such words as "the elect" and how long (end of the age)?

No, you are not presenting any consistency here, either.

Why does he need to do that? You claim innate spiritual ability is found in all humankind in violation of Scriptures such as John 14:6, by presenting that humans may at will crank up their own spiritual ability that it gets God's attention...

People without understanding usually consider that which they cannot comprehend either in terms of amazement or in terms of absurd.

Which selection is determined upon the landscape in which one abides.

 

Yet another post containing falsehood after falsehood.

Note the non-answer to the question of why hardened those already supposedly hardened, but instead a change of subject. Obfuscation on display.
Note the nonsensical charge of inconsistency. Anything to change the subject.
Did I claim soil #1 had "innate spiritual ability? Nope, so yet another blatant falsehood.
Finally the fiction of judicial hardening is defended with an ad hominem.

 

What he is saying that unless the Lord Jesus Christ said it, then not even the Apostles can be read as truthful.

It reminds me of some folks in the initial stages of the "Jesus Movement." They would study very diligently the statements of Christ, but pass over the rest of Scriptures, even to the point of dismissing sinful behaviors.

Some in this group did not consider the "whole counsel of God" extended to any other than Christ.

We still have some that do that same teaching and thinking. Surprisingly they are also the ones that sponsor the "National Prayer Breakfast" meetings. (Secretive Christian group at heart of D.C. politics ready for its close-up in Netflix docuseries)

 

Romans11:1-10 analysis and commentary by Van.

1: His people refers to those chosen under the promise of the Old Covenant, believing Jews. Not all of the blood line descendants of Abraham.

2: His people (believing Jews) whom He foreknew (as part of the Old Covenant promise). Thus they were part of His previously formulated redemption plan under the Old Covenant Promise, not the Law.

3: Some of Abraham's descendants rejected God and killed His prophets. These were not part of "His people."

4: But from among the blood line descendants, God chose 7000 based on the condition of their faith in Him, for they had not bowed the knee to Baal.

5: At the time of Paul's writing of Romans, there had come to a a remnant, in the same way, or in other words according to God's choice of believing Jews.

6. An election based on faith is a gracious choice, and is not an election based on works.

7. Those seeking the promise by works were hardened, but those seeking the promise by faith were chosen. Note the timing of the choice, at the present time, rather than before creation.

8: The temporary hardening is as described in the OT.

9: The temporary hardening is as described elsewhere in the OT.

10: Note the duration of the hardening appears to last the lifetime of the individuals hardened at that time, rather than the hardening of all Jews for an unspecified period of time. Thus the hardening ended many many years ago, thus the hardening (diminishment) ended and the restoration (fullness) has occurred.

As you can see, this is a radically different take on the passage. Study the passage and two very different views and see what fits with the actual scripture.

 

Really, so I lied?

Then pull out the exact part of the post and refute it.

Does not the Scriptures state that "Even a child is known by their doing?"

Was there ANY mention of "soil?" Yet, here you are attempting to distract from being exposed.

Once again, you make huge claims about others but your own inconsistency is begging to be covered up.

You want to refute hardening, all types, yet you want to zero in on a term. Really.

You, who would post that ALL people have the innate ability to exercise their own faith in such a manner as to get God's attention that He might let Jesus know that the person needs to be saved, in direct violation of John 14:6, would question the term "judicial hardening?"

You, who would repeatedly present that a person has the innate ability to express to some level of acceptance by God who must also check it for honesty and earnestness prior to the granting of salvation and crediting them, would question "judicial hardening?"

Your own scheme doesn't present as something to take seriously, yet you would have the audacity to attempt to enlighten?

Is this not a direct quote of how you present salvation?

" The ungodly lost spiritually dead individuals first put their wholehearted trust in Christ, and then if God credits that faith as righteousness, He transfers them into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous, blameless and perfect. Thus the justification occrs after God puts a believer into Christ." (bold places done for sequential highlighting) (taken from: "Wrath of God" as used in the Scriptures)
​

You want a lost, spiritually dead, person to first "wholeheartedly trust Christ." And THEN God will respond.

And you want to be taken seriously?

 

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Now where is mans ability?... Brother Glen

 

Because you expressed desire for someone to respond to your presentation, I will go point by point showing where you are in agreement with Scriptures and were you are not.

No, What "his people" refers to is to the line of Jacob and not the line of Esau nor the line (though not stated) of Ishmael.

"...how he appeals to God against Israel?" God never refers to the line of Esau or Ishmael as "Israel." That is reserved for the descendants of Jacob who was renamed "Israel."​

This then REMOVES the thinking of "BELIEVING" from the line of "believing Jews" and makes it Jews - believing or not.

See above remark concerning the word "believing."

Wrong.
There is NO place at this time in the passage where such a distinction is made. Such a distinction is without Scripture support, and therefore an invalid assumption on your part.

NO! At no point is the choice made upon "the condition of their faith in Him." Again, that is your assumption and not supported by the Scriptures.

Here is the quote from Romans 11: "...chosen by grace. 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

Totally an assumption on your part, and at no point supported by Romans 11. See note above concerning "believing Jews."

Here is the quote from Romans 11:

6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.​

You insert "faith" replacing the meaning with something that is foreign to the basic text of Romans 11 which majors upon the unmerited favor expressed to specific people.

Where are you finding this in Romans 11? There is nothing even suggesting "faith" as the determination of a promise!

This is correct

This is also correct

And from where do you get that such a "duration of hardening appears to the last of the lifetime of the individuals hardened at that time?"
There is absolutely no support for such thinking, but is mere assumption that has no validity.
Earlier in the post you referred to the time of the writing of the letter. Might I present for your consideration, that by the time Romans was written NONE of the original leaders who pushed for the crucifixion were alive? Therefore, Paul was writing of contemporaries who were not even around perhaps not even born.

My assumption can be just as valid as yours. Can you prove me wrong using historical and/or Scripture? Nope.

Well, I have studied the passage.

Studied it many times.

And your scheme is nothing really new. But has been refuted by others as not "what fits with the actual Scriptures."

Anytime one has to insert words, replace words, make huge assumptions, then generally speaking they are not bringing true light to the passage.

 

Certainly, all have a measure of obstinacy. The Scriptures state that foolishness is bound in the heart of even a child. The same does sear the conscience and that searing further grows the obstinacy. It is all part of the human rejection of righteousness.

However, the Scriptures state that the heart of the ruler is subject to God. It further states that God will turn that heart to achieve His purposes.

Now, God said He hardened that ruler's heart. That said, I take it that it was hardened.

Moses, being the astute man he was, had already expressed reluctance, first about the mission and then about his own ability.

God said to Moses,"19But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. 20So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go."

Then after some more conversation, and Moses returning to Jethro telling of the mission and starting off, God again speaks to him saying, "21And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."

Now a casual reading may consider that pharaoh's heart needed further hardening to achieve the purposes of God. That would be consistent with the statement considering the rulers and the authority of God already mentioned above. That would also present a conflict with your own presentation.

Also, one who reads more carefully will know that God will compel compliance from the pharaoh "with his mighty hand." That compelling to compliance is an indication of the level of obstinacy. A continued and sustained obstinacy, a growing obstinacy until broken by death of the first born.

So when I posted that God's hardening of the heart was the confirmation of hardness into obstinacy, I was diligently following the Scripture principles.

That you do not recognize such principles being applied does not warrant my post to be lowered to your standard of acceptability.

 

Um... no.

The construction of the Hebrew in 1 Kings 19 does not allow for this interpretation. The verb translated "I will leave" is a Hiphil stem and is, therefore, causative--the subject is causing the result of the verb. Paul's translation in Romans 11:4 is spot on: "I have left for myself..." God is not choosing those who have remained faithful to Him, rejecting Baal. The grammar clearly states (as Paul himself translates) that God's choosing of these 7000 is the cause of their faithfulness to God.

The Archangel

 

The subject is Romans 11, but I will address this off topic post one more time. Verse 14 says "the things" of the Spirit of God, not all the things or some of the things. Therefore we must use context to determine the scope of the statement. Now look at 1 Corinthians 3:1 where Paul speaks to new born Christians as to men of flesh. This clearly teaches that men of flesh (natural men, unregenerate men) can understand and grow with the "Milk" referring to the fundamentals of the gospel.

Therefore the unregenerate person has limited spiritual ability, able to understand spiritual milk but not spiritual solid food (meat).