Help with Romans 11:20-21

[George Antonios]

No. Like so many do, you read hell into the text.

Open a thread.

 

[George Antonios]

We are at an impasse. You struggle with a covenantal God and thus cannot accept that an unbeliever can be in a covenant relationship with God, yet not be saved. The problem for you is that the Bible clearly shows us such a relationship. That covenantal relationship continues into the church whereby people worshipping in covenant at a church may not be believers. Such a distinction is in the Bible, but you seem unable to grasp this. Perhaps God will help you see.

What I see is a lack of verses, especially NT ones; and lack of a reply to the pointed-out truth that the New Testament can only be entered through faith in the blood of Christ.

 

[AustinC]

What I see is a lack of verses, especially NT ones; and lack of a reply to the pointed-out truth that the New Testament can only be entered through faith in the blood of Christ.

I know what you see...and I know what you cannot, at this time, see.

 

[atpollard]

Precisely. holy.
Not "saved", not "under the new covenant", not "Christians", not "regenerated", not "justified", not "redeemed". Holy just means "set apart". All that means is that God recognizes the marriage as legitimate and the children as non-bastards since Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled (Heb.13:4).
You think a Christ-rejecting teenage son of a Christian & non-Christian couple is automatically under the individualistic New Testament which can only be availed of through faith in the blood of Christ?
Imagine building a soteriology on that one verse...

1. "set apart" means more than simply "not a bastard".
2. I never said that any child was saved because of who their parent was. If you will reread all of my few posts in this thread, you will see that is exactly the opposite of what I have been stating (which makes this discussion unprofitable for both of us).
3. I was careful NOT to say they were saved (since they were not). What I said was:

All children born into Christian homes start out with an advantage (even as being born a Jew offered one a starting advantage of access to the word and teachings of God). Yet how many grow up "highminded" and lacking in fear of the Lord? How many choose unbelief and find themselves broken off from the fellowship that once protected them as children?

Do you deny that unbelievers can find fellowship within the community of believers? That the church has been known to help strangers, so how much more would it come to the aid of the children of its members? How can God bless a God-fearing husband and wife, and that blessing not at least partially benefit the children living in their home? Can God shelter the parents and leave the young children homeless on the street? Can God feed the parents and leave their young children to starve in the same house? Has the child of Godly parents at least HEARD the Gospel where the child of Atheists has only heard God mocked?

I stand by my final conclusion that you should ...

see Ezekiel 18.

You are acting as if it was no advantage at all that Timothy was raised to fear God by his mother and grandmother. That he might as well have been raised worshiping Molech and it would have made no difference at all.

 

[George Antonios]

"set apart" means more than simply "not a bastard".

Not here it doesn't. The context is simply that they are legitimate. And if you don't mean that "holy" = "saved" than what do you mean? Paul's addressee is not a mere professor. He is a believer. Since a man is saved by faith, then Paul's addressee is saved.

I never said that any child was saved because of who their parent was. If you will reread all of my few posts in this thread, you will see that is exactly the opposite of what I have been stating (which makes this discussion unprofitable for both of us).

I didn't say "saved". I said "under...the new testament". But soteriology is not far behind such an approach.

The discussion has nothing to do with mere advantages or fellowships. Paul's addressee has been graffed into the root by faith. It's someone, or some nation, that actually believes, not merely professes to believe. All the arguments so far try to play the "professing" Christian card but the context won't allow it. Paul's addressee is actually standing by faith, and is warned of staying that way. A lost man hanging around preaching and Christians is not graffed in and partaking of the fatness - he doesn't have to be broken off for he was never graffed in to begin with. Paul is discussing an actual spiritual state, not the mere physical presence around a church.

I believe in eternal security. I absolutely do. But a bad argument is a bad argument even when it supports my position.
We both agree the text cannot be teaching loss of salvation, but the arguments presented so far do not honestly deal with the text.
We need better.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is a good question and one I admit to working out. My initial thought is the New Covenant, which replaces the Sinai/Mosaic Covenant. I view the Abrahamic Covenant as being associated with redemptive faith and thus being an everlasting covenant. I can see the New Covenant as having a corporate component to it which encompasses all the church members without fully requiring a redemption of the individual by faith, yet also including the redeemed. I will not die on this hill as I am still working out this covenantal relationship we have with God. I recognize that Reformed faith tradition and Lutheran faith tradition (as well as Roman Catholic faith tradition) seems to incorporate this idea of covenant. I think Rome and Lutheran tradition goes too far as the create baptismal regeneration from such covenant, but the Reformed do not establish regeneration while still understanding covenant. I admit this is a work in progress for me as I originated from a free will Baptist, dispensational upbringing. As I study, read and listen, I begin to see the beautiful flow of the Bible in covenantal relationship.
I hope that isn't offensive to say I am in process of working this out.

First of all, congratulations on your honesty! There are precious few, on any discussion forum, who will admit to any degree of uncertainty about anything.
Presbyterian Covenant Theology declares the New Covenant to include the unsaved. This is to justify infant baptism. Baptist C.T., which goes right back to John Spilsbury in the 1640s, declares the New Covenant to be with the redeemed, and this is surely right because Jeremiah 31:33 indicates that everyone in the N.C. knows the Lord. If you are interested in this, there is an excellent work on this subject called The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault and published by Solid Ground Christian Books.

Now some Dispensationals believe that the N.C. is not yet in force and is yet to be made with 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah' (Jer. 31:31). But that horse doesn't run. When Jeremiah gave his prophecy, all these things lay in the future, but they are repeated by the writer to the Hebrews as an accomplished fact. In Hebrews 8:6, he tells us that the new covenant has already been established, and in 10:18, we learn that there is already remission of sins for those in the N.C. which is why offerings are no longer required. Those who believe are the sons of Abraham (Galatians 3:7), and believers, both Jew and Gentile are the true circumcision (Philippians 3:3).

I will write something on the O.P. presently.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe in the eternal security of the church-age believer, but I don't have an exposition that perfectly satisfies me when it comes to:
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

The commentators I have read which defend eternal security did not truly tackle the verses head-on.
My own best answer for the moment is that the thou standest by faith is national, not individual.
I can relatively well make that case from the verses in context.
But I wish to have as good an answer as possible in relation to defending eternal security. Could you thus help me expound the passage without resorting to the amateurish and ubiquitous "this verse is poorly translated" escape?

Thanks

I think you need to change 'eternal security' to 'the perseverance of the saints' (Matthew 24:13).
All God's elect will be saved, but they will not be saved without persevering in the faith. There is a whole raft of texts declaring that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord!" Will enter the kingdom of heaven.
'Fear' of God is always regarded positively in the Bible, including the N.T. 'Then all the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were edified' (Acts 9:31).

 

[George Antonios]

I think you need to change 'eternal security' to 'the perseverance of the saints' (Matthew 24:13).

Matthew 24:13's context is the tribulation, not the church age. At the time Christ was speaking, Paul had not yet been saved, and the revelation of the church mystery that was dispensed of God to him was not yet made known.
During the tribulation, believers will have to persevere through the 7 years in order to enter the kingdom, otherwise, they lose their salvation.
During the church age, eternal security holds true, and there is no need to persevere.
Dispensations, as usual, solve everything.

 

[atpollard]

I didn't say "saved". I said "under...the new testament". But soteriology is not far behind such an approach.

Yyyyaaaaawwwwnnnn.

Precisely. holy.
Not "saved", not "under the new covenant", not "Christians", not "regenerated", not "justified", not "redeemed". Holy just means "set apart". All that means is that God recognizes the marriage as legitimate and the children as non-bastards since Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled (Heb.13:4).
You think a Christ-rejecting teenage son of a Christian & non-Christian couple is automatically under the individualistic New Testament which can only be availed of through faith in the blood of Christ?
Imagine building a soteriology on that one verse...

It must have been your EVIL TWIN.

 

[atpollard]

I believe in eternal security. I absolutely do. But a bad argument is a bad argument even when it supports my position.
We both agree the text cannot be teaching loss of salvation, but the arguments presented so far do not honestly deal with the text.
We need better.

One of us (or both of us) need our eyes and ears opened. We are wasting electrons talking past one another.
Good luck finding whatever answer you think you are looking for.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Matthew 24:13's context is the tribulation, not the church age. At the time Christ was speaking, Paul had not yet been saved, and the revelation of the church mystery that was dispensed of God to him was not yet made known.
During the tribulation, believers will have to persevere through the 7 years in order to enter the kingdom, otherwise, they lose their salvation.
During the church age, eternal security holds true, and there is no need to persevere.
Dispensations, as usual, solve everything.

Dispensations solve nothing; they only muddy the waters. Otherwise you wouldn't be all at sea with Romans 11. Salami-slicing the word of God always darkens understanding.
Matthew 24:13 is right in line with Colossians 1:23.

 

[George Antonios]

Dispensations solve nothing; they only muddy the waters. Otherwise you wouldn't be all at sea with Romans 11. Salami-slicing the word of God always darkens understanding.
Matthew 24:13 is right in line with Colossians 1:23.

Dividing the word of God is a commandment (2Ti.2:15). Call it what you want.
Colossians 1:22 is to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight not "to be saved" as in Mt.24:13.
Saved Christians must still appear before the judgment seat of Christ to give account, and some will be saved; yet so as by fire (1Co.3:15) because there may still be blame and reproof at the judgment seat of Christ, but not loss of salvation.

In Matthew 24:13 the end is repeatedly defined as the end of the tribulation, matching Daniel, not of one's life.

Talk about muddying the waters.

 

[percho]

We are at an impasse. You struggle with a covenantal God and thus cannot accept that an unbeliever can be in a covenant relationship with God, yet not be saved. The problem for you is that the Bible clearly shows us such a relationship. That covenantal relationship continues into the church whereby people worshipping in covenant at a church may not be believers. Such a distinction is in the Bible, but you seem unable to grasp this. Perhaps God will help you see.

I believe the scripture shows Saul/Paul was an unbeliever going down the road in unbelief when Jesus called him.

 

[AustinC]

I believe the scripture shows Saul/Paul was an unbeliever going down the road in unbelief when Jesus called him.

Yes he was. Was he under covenant with YHWH while an unbeliever?
Was King Ahab under covenant with YHWH though he never had faith?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Dividing the word of God is a commandment (2Ti.2:15). Call it what you want.

The emphasis in 2 Timothy 2:15 is on rightly dividing the word of God, which you do not do by salami-slicing it into artificial dispensations. And orthotomeo has the meaning of 'cutting a straight path' as in Proverbs 11:5, LXX.

Colossians 1:22 is to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight not "to be saved" as in Mt.24:13.
Saved Christians must still appear before the judgment seat of Christ to give account, and some will be saved; yet so as by fire (1Co.3:15) because there may still be blame and reproof at the judgment seat of Christ, but not loss of salvation.

This is just awful, potentially sending your congregation to hell with a pocket-full of false promises in their hands.
'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.'
Yes, but I made a profession of faith back in 1989!
'Do not be deceived.'
Yes, but I was baptized by immersion and the pastor laid hands on me.
'Do not be deceived.'
Yes, but George Antonios says.......'
'Do not be deceived.' 'I tell you beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practise such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.'
Yes, but that only applies to people in such-and-such a dispensation.'
'Those who practise such things will not enter the kingdom of God.' 'Do not be deceived!'

'In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God, nor is he that does not love his brother' (1 John 3:10). 1 Cor. 3:10-15 is about theology. People are not saved by having all their theological ducks in a row; so long as their foundation is in Christ (v.11). They are saved by repenting of their sins (eg. Mark 1:15) and trusting in Christ who, in His life and on the cross, has done everything necessary to save them from their sins. But the proof of this will be that in the power of the Holy Spirit they seek to keep Christ's righteous commandments (John 14:15; Romans 6:1-2;1 Corinthians 7:19; Ephesians 2:10 etc.).

In Matthew 24:13 the end is repeatedly defined as the end of the tribulation, matching Daniel, not of one's life.

Talk about muddying the waters.

The end is the return of Christ at the end of the age. Our Lord was answering the questions of the disciples (Matthew 24:3).

 

[percho]

Yes he was. Was he under covenant with YHWH while an unbeliever?
Was King Ahab under covenant with YHWH though he never had faith?

Maybe, but he was not a sheep had did not hear his voice.

 

[Yeshua1]

Right. We see that people can be in covenant with God, yet not have faith in God. Church members can come to church and worship God in covenant with everyone, yet not have faith or be alive with Christ. Such people are in danger of being cut off, just as God cut off the scribes and Pharisees from covenant with him.

This is an area where have had serious discussions regarding if people are under the NC even while both saved and lost in the Church!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are absolutely right that church members can come to church, say and do all the right things, yet not have a living faith or be alive in Christ.
But tell me, what covenant do you think such people are in?

They would be lost, and outside of the new one!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a good question and one I admit to working out. My initial thought is the New Covenant, which replaces the Sinai/Mosaic Covenant. I view the Abrahamic Covenant as being associated with redemptive faith and thus being an everlasting covenant. I can see the New Covenant as having a corporate component to it which encompasses all the church members without fully requiring a redemption of the individual by faith, yet also including the redeemed. I will not die on this hill as I am still working out this covenantal relationship we have with God. I recognize that Reformed faith tradition and Lutheran faith tradition (as well as Roman Catholic faith tradition) seems to incorporate this idea of covenant. I think Rome and Lutheran tradition goes too far as the create baptismal regeneration from such covenant, but the Reformed do not establish regeneration while still understanding covenant. I admit this is a work in progress for me as I originated from a free will Baptist, dispensational upbringing. As I study, read and listen, I begin to see the beautiful flow of the Bible in covenantal relationship.
I hope that isn't offensive to say I am in process of working this out.

reformed baptist would see the new Covenant being established just between God and the redeemed, so only saved are to be seen included among it, so big reason why no infant Baptism, as they cannot be in the NC as a believer!

 

[AustinC]

This is an area where have had serious discussions regarding if people are under the NC even while both saved and lost in the Church!

I just listened to Ligonier Ministries debate on Credo v Paedo baptism. MacArthur argues for credo and Sproul argues for paedo.
The verse upon which Abrahamic Covenant and New Covenant hinge is found in 1 Corinthians 7:13-14.

If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

The argument is that a sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision. The sign of the New covenant is baptism. Children, not yet believing, were circumcized into the Abrahamic covenant so that they might be set aside to know God. Thus children who are baptized into the New covenant so that they might be set aside to God. In neither situation did it mean the children were saved. In both covenants salvation is by grace through faith alone. One was never saved by circumcision nor is one ever saved by baptism.


"A Paedobaptist Position on Baptism" from Ligonier Ministries A Paedobaptist Position on Baptism by R.C. Sproul

MacArthur has a different take on the passage in 1 Corinthians 7.

"A Credobaptist Position on Baptism" from Ligonier Ministries A Credobaptist Position on Baptism by John MacArthur