A Very Simple Test - Rom. 9

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, ya'll are probably right.

What would a doctrine about God's active blinding of his elect nation so as to prevent them from seeing, hearing, understanding and turning to God for healing have to do with soteriology, the nature of man or election?

I'm sure I've just made a much ado about nothing. Go about your normal business of systematizing God into his little deterministic box, giving your pat one liners and congratulating yourselves for your latest debate forum "conquest." I won't bother you anymore with the facts.

People have explained this to you over and over and yet you harp on it.
You misunderstand it.You misunderstand Pauls' use of it.You misunderstand romans 1 which you try and project all men as the original Adam ...who are like a blank slate.....then they hear bible teaching, weigh it out, but nevertheless....exchange the truth of God for a lie.

Paul uses that to show the whole human race is condemned as fAR BACK AS GENESIS, before the nations were scattered.....

They turned from a true knowledge of God.....then God turned them over.

All are condemned in unbelief and perishing unless and until God intervenes in grace and mercy.
Paul and Jn quote from isa to demonstrate that it is the duty of all men to repent and believe the gospel.

The fact that that generation of Jews wanted Jesus crucified did not surprise God.
Paul explains it,then quotes from the Song of Moses [deut30} in Romans10.. to any who the Spirit might have been drawing with a scripturally sensitive conscience.

that is why it is written,Kyred spells it out, Biblicist schools you on it, and yet you think it is like silly putty that you can twist out and make it say what you speculate it might mean , and then want to recommend ways God could have had a better plan ...by leaving it to sinful man:sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

[percho]

Chapter 9 is about being called.

I was thinking today about how sometime we are asked to give out testimony.

And generally we tell about how we came to Christ.

Would Acts 26: be Paul's testimony?

Does Paul testify of how he came to Christ or does he testify of how God called him. Where in his testimony does he tell of feeling the drawing of the Holy Spirt?

Here is his testimony.

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

God through his Son Jesus called Paul according to purpose and for purpose.



And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim 1:12,13

God translated Paul from darkness (unbelief) unto light (belief).

There were others with Paul that day. Do we have record of God calling any of them? We are told they could not understand the voice. Why was just one set of ears opened to hearing and understanding?

 

[Skandelon]

The fact that that generation of Jews wanted Jesus crucified did not surprise God.

Obviously...Scriptures teach that God 'sent them a spirit of stupor' to blind them (Rom. 11) and spoke to them in parables lest they hear and believe. That is why they were UNABLE to 'see, hear, understand and believe, as John 12:39-41 clearly spells out.

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."​

For what reason? Total INability? Because they were born like that? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because God was HARDENING them! Wake up and smell the 'spirit of stupor' you Calvinists!!! :BangHead:

 

[kyredneck]

But Ro 9 is not about Jews only:

...vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles

I never suggested it was.

You certainly sound like you do, and the link you provided in your first post does; the synopsis it provides for chap 9 is:

“9. God's right to reject national Israel for salvation after using them to produce the Messiah.”

AT THE VERY LEAST the vessels of mercy which are prepared beforehand in Ro 9 include both Jews and Gentiles. That can't be disputed.

Do you see the text of Ro 9 as no way related to a text such as 2 Cor 4?:

….And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4:3,4

Seeing it is God....who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

 

[preacher4truth]

Chapter 9 is about being called.

I was thinking today about how sometime we are asked to give out testimony.

And generally we tell about how we came to Christ.

Would Acts 26: be Paul's testimony?

Does Paul testify of how he came to Christ or does he testify of how God called him. Where in his testimony does he tell of feeling the drawing of the Holy Spirt?

Here is his testimony.

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

God through his Son Jesus called Paul according to purpose and for purpose.



And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim 1:12,13

God translated Paul from darkness (unbelief) unto light (belief).

There were others with Paul that day. Do we have record of God calling any of them? We are told they could not understand the voice. Why was just one set of ears opened to hearing and understanding?

This is how God works in salvation and this is seen all throughout Scripture. We could ask, why didn't Jesus heal ALL those around him, as at times He chose only to do so for one. He is making a point as per Romans 9:16, showing His Sovereignty, showing mercy on whom He wills. He also reveals Himself only to whom He wills Matthew 11:25ff, not to all, nor is it seen in Scripture that God gives to all men the same 'chance' (as arminians and anti-cals put it in their dissident theology). Those anti-cals and arminians do not like this Scriptural depiction of God and so have created one in their own imaginations that they like and deem as fair, and who, mind you, must succumb to their free wills.

I could imagine if any anti-cals and arminians were present on the road to Damascus with Paul (thankfully that theological atrocity didn't appear on the scene until much later) these would've been there to tell the others that were not called all they need to do is muster up some faith, add a dash of free will and make a decision, then they would popishly declare them on their way to heaven.

The bottom line is God does not call everyone. Note 1 Cor. 1:22ff and we can see that some are in fact not called, and that it is God who does the choosing, not man. The Sovereignty of God in doing as He wills with whom He wills is seen in Jeremiah 24. It is a scarlet thread throughout Scripture and as true as it was in the OT it was true in the NT and is still true today.

 

[preacher4truth]

People have explained this to you over and over and yet you harp on it.
You misunderstand it.You misunderstand Pauls' use of it.You misunderstand romans 1 which you try and project all men as the original Adam ...who are like a blank slate.....then they hear bible teaching, weigh it out, but nevertheless....exchange the truth of God for a lie.

Paul uses that to show the whole human race is condemned as fAR BACK AS GENESIS, before the nations were scattered.....

They turned from a true knowledge of God.....then God turned them over.

All are condemned in unbelief and perishing unless and until God intervenes in grace and mercy.
Paul and Jn quote from isa to demonstrate that it is the duty of all men to repent and believe the gospel.

The fact that that generation of Jews wanted Jesus crucified did not surprise God.
Paul explains it,then quotes from the Song of Moses [deut30} in Romans10.. to any who the Spirit might have been drawing with a scripturally sensitive conscience.

that is why it is written,Kyred spells it out, Biblicist schools you on it, and yet you think it is like silly putty that you can twist out and make it say what you speculate it might mean , and then want to recommend ways God could have had a better plan ...by leaving it to sinful man:sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

Exactly. Skan has the doctrines of sin, man and God wrong. His entire foundation is made up of error from beginning to end. He's been through this hundreds of times and doesn't understand 'not of yourselves', in fact when one fully reads and understands his position it is to be noted that he rejects it outright. Each post of his is nothing more than a glorifying of man and mans ability, lessening of the fall in sin, diminishing of Sovereignty, and he cannot see it. He is making man the potter and God the clay.

 

[quantumfaith]

Obviously...Scriptures teach that God 'sent them a spirit of stupor' to blind them (Rom. 11) and spoke to them in parables lest they hear and believe. That is why they were UNABLE to 'see, hear, understand and believe, as John 12:39-41 clearly spells out.

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."​

For what reason? Total INability? Because they were born like that? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because God was HARDENING them! Wake up and smell the 'spirit of stupor' you Calvinists!!! :BangHead:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

You certainly sound like you do, and the link you provided in your first post does; the synopsis it provides for chap 9 is:

“9. God's right to reject national Israel for salvation after using them to produce the Messiah.”

AT THE VERY LEAST the vessels of mercy which are prepared beforehand in Ro 9 include both Jews and Gentiles. That can't be disputed.

We aren't disputing that.

There are three 'groups' in consideration.

1. Israel, as a whole, is being 'cut off' or hardened because despite God's holding out his hands to them for a long time (Rm. 10:21), they continue in their rebellion, so God has 'given them over to it' and cut them off for the ignoble/common use of crucifying the Christ. Like foreshadowed in Pharaoh, God hardened Israel to bring about the Passover. He blinded them, sent them a spirit of stupor, spoke using parables...why? To prevent them from coming to faith before redemption for the nations was accomplished.

2. Remnant of Israel: God always reserved messengers to ensure His purpose in the election of Israel would stand. Despite their rebellion, God reserved a few selected Jews to reserve from the hardening, but the rest were hardened. They, like Paul or Jacob before him, were chosen not because they deserved it, but in order that God's purpose in electing the nation would be accomplish...the purpose of bringing the Messiah and redemption to the nations.

3. The Nations (Gentiles): This is everyone else. The nations are being 'grafted in.' Meaning the gospel is going to the nations. They are being 'shown mercy.' God is granting them the means to enter covenant by grace through faith. "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one."

Now, do you understand our perspective? I'm not asking for agreement. That wouldn't happen short of a miracle, but I do believe we should be able to at least understand each other before throwing darts in ignorance.

 

[kyredneck]

We aren't disputing that.

There are three 'groups' in consideration.

1. Israel, as a whole, is being 'cut off' or hardened because despite God's holding out his hands to them for a long time (Rm. 10:21), they continue in their rebellion, so God has 'given them over to it' and cut them off for the ignoble/common use of crucifying the Christ. Like foreshadowed in Pharaoh, God hardened Israel to bring about the Passover. He blinded them, sent them a spirit of stupor, spoke using parables...why? To prevent them from coming to faith before redemption for the nations was accomplished.

2. Remnant of Israel: God always reserved messengers to ensure His purpose in the election of Israel would stand. Despite their rebellion, God reserved a few selected Jews to reserve from the hardening, but the rest were hardened. They, like Paul or Jacob before him, were chosen not because they deserved it, but in order that God's purpose in electing the nation would be accomplish...the purpose of bringing the Messiah and redemption to the nations.

3. The Nations (Gentiles): This is everyone else. The nations are being 'grafted in.' Meaning the gospel is going to the nations. They are being 'shown mercy.' God is granting them the means to enter covenant by grace through faith. "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one."

Now, do you understand our perspective? I'm not asking for agreement. That wouldn't happen short of a miracle, but I do believe we should be able to at least understand each other before throwing darts in ignorance.

Do you see the text of Ro 9 as no way related to a text such as 2 Cor 4?:

….And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4:3,4

Seeing it is God....who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

Compare with:

So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. Ro 9:18

 

[Skandelon]

Do you see the text of Ro 9 as no way related to a text such as 2 Cor 4?:

….And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4:3,4

Seeing it is God....who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

Compare with:

So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. Ro 9:18

Two things:

1. You didn't seem to interact with my post at all. You just jumped to another passage. That is a bit frustrating because I have no idea if you read or took time to try and comprehend what I wrote.

2. The question is not whether Israel (or any one for that matter) has a veil over their eyes or not. The question is how is the veil removed, and I believe the context of your passage answers that very clearly for us:

13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull[they weren't born 'dull' but were made so over time], for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away[notice it is not pre-Christ that it is taken away, but IN Christ]. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their [speaking of Israel, not necessarily Gentiles (see Acts 28:28] hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. [This makes it very clear that men are still response-able for having the veil removed by turning to God] 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom[the spirit enables freedom]. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.​

Paul says, "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." He does not say, "The veils is taken away to ensure that his elect will turn to the Lord," as a Calvinist would teach.

 

[Aaron]

Paul writes this in 2 Tim 2:

"In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work."​

Sound like a familiar analogy? Yep, same exact one

Lessee . . .
The one analogy, folks are vessels created unto honor or dishonor, in the other the church is a large house containing both vessels.

Yeah. Exactly the same. You probably use a field guide of north american trees to identify birds. "That's an oak bird! Hey, here's a maple feather!!":laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

For what reason? Total INability? Because they were born like that? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

Skan, if you understood the nature of sin, total inability from birth would be unavoidable. Instead you interpret sin like the Pharisees and most other religions to be something primarily either wrong actions and possibly wrong attitudes and words but the Biblical definition goes much deeper. It is a bad heart. Infants come into this world with evil hearts and it is easy to see for anyone who has the slightest bit of discernment. An infant is totally SELF-CENTERED and wholly SELFISH and as soon as they are able to express themselves anyone with eyes in their head can easily see this. They need no one to teach them selfisheness but to teach the opposite as selfishness comes naturally.

God looks upon the heart and judges every thought, word and action by the heart. The only heart motive that makes thoughts, words and actions acceptable before God is the motive that spelled out in 1 Cor. 10:31 -the glory of God. That is why Jesus said "THERE IS NONE GOOD" with only one exception "God" excluding infants, children, youth, middle aged or old men from that one exception. That is why Paul said "all have sinned and COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

You simply reject the sole exception made by Christ in your definition of "good" and your explanation of the fallen nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

Skan, if you understood the nature of sin, total inability from birth would be unavoidable. Instead you interpret sin like the Pharisees and most other religions to be something primarily either wrong actions and possibly wrong attitudes and words but the Biblical definition goes much deeper. It is a bad heart. Infants come into this world with evil hearts and it is easy to see for anyone who has the slightest bit of discernment. An infant is totally SELF-CENTERED and wholly SELFISH and as soon as they are able to express themselves anyone with eyes in their head can easily see this. They need no one to teach them selfisheness but to teach the opposite as selfishness comes naturally.

God looks upon the heart and judges every thought, word and action by the heart. The only heart motive that makes thoughts, words and actions acceptable before God is the motive that spelled out in 1 Cor. 10:31 -the glory of God. That is why Jesus said "THERE IS NONE GOOD" with only one exception "God" excluding infants, children, youth, middle aged or old men from that one exception. That is why Paul said "all have sinned and COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

You simply reject the sole exception made by Christ in your definition of "good" and your explanation of the fallen nature.

19 ¶ Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

The context demands these verses are talking about the Lord's household of faith and not inclusive of the lost.

1. The entirety of chapter 2 is directions on how a servant of Christ can excell in the service of God.

2. Verse 19 is an exhortation to children of God to depart from iniquity.

3. Verse 21 is not talking about saved versus lost but how a child of God may be better prepared to be used in His Master's service.

4. There are saved persons in God's household of faith who are in all different conditions of sanctification. There would be no need to exhort some saints to depart from iniquity if some were not in that condition needing such exhortation.

This text is in no way comparable to Romans 9:20-24. The vessels in Romans 9:20-24 are distinguished by their eternal destinies "for glory" versus "fitted unto destruction." Surely you can see the plain distinctions between these two passages and that they have NOTHING in common with each other.

 

[kyredneck]

Two things:

1. You didn't seem to interact with my post at all. You just jumped to another passage.

No, I just posted for the second time the question/passage that you never interacted with.

That is a bit frustrating because I have no idea if you read or took time to try and comprehend what I wrote.

I read it, I don’t consider it pertinent to the text of Ro 9, at least not the way you do.

2. The question is not whether Israel (or any one for that matter) has a veil over their eyes or not. The question is how is the veil removed, and I believe the context of your passage answers that very clearly for us:

13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull[they weren't born 'dull' but were made so over time], for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away[notice it is not pre-Christ that it is taken away, but IN Christ]. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their [speaking of Israel, not necessarily Gentiles (see Acts 28:28] hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. [This makes it very clear that men are still response-able for having the veil removed by turning to God] 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom[the spirit enables freedom]. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.​

Paul says, "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." He does not say, "The veils is taken away to ensure that his elect will turn to the Lord," as a Calvinist would teach.

I could’ve done without the paraphrasing. Straight to the point, can you do that?:

15 But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart.
16 But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 1 Cor 3

Seeing it is God....who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

What’s your sequence of events here? Is it:

1. God shines in the heart, then one turns to the Lord, then the veil is taken away?

2. One turns to the Lord, then the veil is taken away, then God shines in the heart?

3. One turns to the Lord, then God shines in the heart, then the veil is taken away?

My own experience is the first one, and the veil has been removed on a myriad of things.

Are the scriptures contradictory? Compare:

…whenever anyone turns to the Lord….2 Cor 3:16

With:

….it is not of him that willeth….Ro 9:16

Care to explain?

 

[kyredneck]

….And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4:3,4

Seeing it is God....who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

Who's stronger, God or the devil?

Compare with:

So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. Ro 9:18

The two texts are saying the same exact thing.

 

[kyredneck]

Lessee . . .
The one analogy, folks are vessels created unto honor or dishonor, in the other the church is a large house containing both vessels.

Yeah. Exactly the same. You probably use a field guide of north american trees to identify birds. "That's an oak bird! Hey, here's a maple feather!!":laugh::laugh::laugh:

That's funny..... a Redbud Woodpecker...a Carolina House Dogwood....a Tufted Tit Pine.....a White-Breasted Catalpa....oops, there ARE Orchard Orioles and Cedar Waxwings...

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

What is a very simple way to determine whether the Apostle Paul was Calvinistic or Arminian in his belief?

I would contend that Paul was neither, given that neither theologian was born at the time of Paul's writings, and that Joseph Arminius was only a fraction removed from supporting Calvin's premises. In fact, the only place they disagreed was Calvin's belief that predestination was based on God's choosing some for salvation and not others, whereas Arminius believed it was based on God's foreknowledge of who would believe. I wonder if you realize that Arminius did not believe one could lose his/her salvation? Yet that is an attribute of the so-called "Arminians" of today. It is wrong to collectively deposit anyone who does not accept the the Calvinist view of predestination in the Arminian camp, because the vast majority who reject that view actually embrace eternal security.

Now, that said, your view of Romans 9-11 ignores a very key factor in the exegesis and analysis of the three chapters. To grasp what these often misinterpreted chapters are about, recall the major theme of Romans: God's unending faithfulness to his promises. God is faithful to us in spite of our unfaithfulness to him. While we still were sinners, Christ died for us. While we still were God's enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son (5:8-10). But, Paul now asks, what about unfaithful Israel?

Does Israel's unfaithfulness mean that Israel has dropped out of God's plan? Does it mean that God has rejected Israel as the people through whom he will bless the world? Has the word of God failed? Else how can it be that the very people whose entire history had been looking forward to the Messiah's coming have now rejected him? Paul's answer is this: Not so. God's promises to Israel once made are not retracted under the impact of Israel's rejection of the Messiah. God has not rejected Israel, nor will God ever do so. The Jews continue to be God's chosen people and to play a role in his plan to save the world. Here is where I part company quite emphatically with covenant theology, and contend that Calvinists who adopt covenant belief have abandoned Calvin.

Paul has no explanation for the hardening that has come over Israel. He doesn't understand why it came about. Israel's rejection of Jesus is a mystery. Israel's rejection is not the same as the rejection by unbelievers, which is to be found everywhere. It is a special rejection, and must be respected as such. In his Israel chapters, Romans 9 to 11, Paul saw God's will in Israel's rejection. It is not because Israel says "No" to Christ that Israel's heart has been hardened. It is because God hardened its heart that it cannot do anything but say "No." Hardness of heart is not the same thing as rejection. It is an act for a particular purpose.

Israel's rejection of the gospel is actually God's own doing. It serves to spread of the gospel among the Gentile nations. Despite turning its back on their own Messiah, Israel remains God's beloved on account of the promises God made to the patriarchs in Romans 11.

Romans 11, NASB

1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
3 "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE."
4 But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL."
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice​

The heart of Romans 9-11 is Paul's metaphor of the olive tree.

Romans 11
16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
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.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?​

The tree, both roots and branches, is Israel. The broken-off branches are the Jews who have rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their rejection is not permanent but temporary. God in his good time will graft the natural, broken-off branches back into "their own olive tree" (v. 24).

The grafted branches are the gentiles who have accepted the gospel. Gentiles who believe in Jesus do not become part of Israel, just as a twig from a wild olive tree grafted into a cultivated olive tree. It receives the but rather are fed by the root, sustained by the "food and water" of the root system. That root system is not Israel, but Christ, who would not be known apart from Israel. In case you were unaware, a wild olive branch grafted into a cultivated tree will never produce an olive, but instead, only serve to sustain the tree through its leaves, collecting sunlight and breathing in carbon dioxide to fuel photosynthesis. Did Paul know that at the time he wrote? I couldn't answer. But the reality of this grafting is unmistakable.

Therefore, we, as the grafted in branches, keep the gospel alive, keep it growing and sustaining the other branches that may be grafted in, including Jews who will eventually come to know Christ, thus being grafted back into their own tree.

For many centuries the Church has been contemptuous of the Jews, claiming that God rejected the Jews and replaced them with the Church. This contempt derailed the Church's thinking about God. Its thinking was this: because Israel rejected Jesus the Messiah, God rejected Israel. But that line of thinking leads to a blind alley. Unless God proves faithful to disobedient Israel, what reason is there to believe that God will be faithful to the disobedient Gentiles? The God who rejects the disobedient people he once chose and then instead chooses another people is not the kind of God who will save a disobedient world.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, if you understood the nature of sin, total inability from birth would be unavoidable.

You mean, if I agreed with the Calvinistic presumptions about the nature of sin and the relative weakness of divine revelation, then total inability from birth would be unavoidable.

It is a bad heart.

And we know from scripture what one must do to get a new heart...just as we know what one must to be a vessel used for noble purposes...and what one must do to have the veil removed...and what one must do to receive life. They must repent, turn, believe! You keep getting the cart before the horse and I get the feeling that God himself would have to step out of heaven and tell you that personally for you to actually hear it because you won't listen to the plain clear reading of the text which in each of those instances has the person's response FIRST.

 

[Skandelon]

Lessee . . .
The one analogy, folks are vessels created unto honor or dishonor, in the other the church is a large house containing both vessels.

Oh, right. I'm sure you affirm contra-causal free will for believers, right? No, you don't, so how exactly do you think that qualification helps your system?

In your system is it even possible for a child of God NOT to be cleansed and used for a noble purpose? I didn't think so. Nice try.

Go work on some bird calls now. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

The context demands these verses are talking about the Lord's household of faith and not inclusive of the lost.

Likewise, Paul is addressing Israel, God's elect nation and how some of that 'household' were being used for the noble purpose of apostleship and others were being used for the ignoble purpose of being hardened/cut off temporarily in their rebellion...both of which were necessary for God's purpose in electing Israel to stand....that purpose was to bring redemption for mankind.