Any Calvinist willing to walk through Romans 11 with me?

[Skandelon]

Well, I don't know how far apart we are. I believe the tree represents the promises given to the patriarchs concerning salvation. You believe it represents the revelation of God.

I base my opinion on chp. 9 v.4 ""who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises..."

And chp. 9 v.8 "that is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

I agree with all this. Good.

I don't believe it means you "stop getting" His revelations. I agree the Jews are, generally speaking, unable to understand the truth of God's revelation in the person of Jesus as Messiah. I understand your point.

No, I agree, God's revelations are all around us, but someone who has grown calloused to them doesn't hear them anymore....not unless something provokes him (like envy, for example)

And in the case where God is judicially blinding someone (giving them a spirit of stupor etc) they can't believe because they can't see, hear or understand the revelation. Their eyes are seeing but never perceiving. I think we agree here.

Is there anything else you want to add to the discussion?

peace to youraying:

Well, if we can agree that the tree is NOT salvation (but instead is God's revelation/promises) then their is no problem with us discussing the individuals within those nations who are "cut off" and "grafted back in," etc, right?

The reason I want to come to an understanding with regard to Romans 11 is because it brings clarity to Paul's intent in Romans 9.

When he makes the statement, "He shows mercy to whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills." He is speaking generally about the nations, just like he is in Romans 11. So, Paul is saying, "He shows mercy on the Gentiles if he wants and he can harden Israel if he wants."

Showing mercy to Gentiles doesn't necessitate that every Gentile will be saved, just as grafting in the Gentiles doesn't necessitate that every Gentile will be saved. It simply means God is giving them the promise...the divine revelation, by which they can be saved.

Hardening Israel doesn't necessitate that every Jew will be condemned to hell, just as cutting off the Jews doesn't necessitate that every Jew will be condemned. It simply means God is blinding them from the divine revelation, otherwise they might, see, hear, understand and repent. (which is NOT God's desire at this time...He wants the Gentiles to become established first.)

I'll stop there and let you comment...

 

[canadyjd]

....Well, if we can agree that the tree is NOT salvation (but instead is God's revelation/promises) then their is no problem with us discussing the individuals within those nations who are "cut off" and "grafted back in," etc, right?

There is never a problem with discussing anything. When you start drawing conclusions that are not supported by the text, there may be a problem.:wavey:

The reason I want to come to an understanding with regard to Romans 11 is because it brings clarity to Paul's intent in Romans 9.

When he makes the statement, "He shows mercy to whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills." He is speaking generally about the nations, just like he is in Romans 11. So, Paul is saying, "He shows mercy on the Gentiles if he wants and he can harden Israel if he wants."

I disagree.

In the very next verse, Paul says, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Paul is speaking of individuals in Romans 9, elaborating on his comment concerning the "children of the promise" that are also identified as the "elect" from both Jew and Gentiles and/or the "remnant" from the Jews.

God foreknew them (in relationship) and in His mercy, declared these individuals to be His elect. He predestined them, called them, justified them and will glorify them (8v.29-30)

Paul goes on to expand his argument in chap. 10 and 11, where he speaks generally of Jews and Gentiles and the grafting into the tree.

Showing mercy to Gentiles doesn't necessitate that every Gentile will be saved, just as grafting in the Gentiles doesn't necessitate that every Gentile will be saved. It simply means God is giving them the promise...the divine revelation, by which they can be saved.

I understand what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree.

One thing that must be kept in mind is that Paul has already revealed that the elect most certainly will be saved and will, therefore, be branches on the tree that will not be cut off.

Hardening Israel doesn't necessitate that every Jew will be condemned to hell, just as cutting off the Jews doesn't necessitate that every Jew will be condemned. It simply means God is blinding them from the divine revelation, otherwise they might, see, hear, understand and repent. (which is NOT God's desire at this time...He wants the Gentiles to become established first.)

Again, the elect remnant of the Jews will most certainly be saved and grafted into the tree.

At the time of the fullness of the Gentiles, there is the possibility that every single Jew alive at that time will be saved (grafted back in).

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

There is never a problem with discussing anything. When you start drawing conclusions that are not supported by the text, there may be a problem.:wavey: I disagree.

Well, do you see any problem with saying there was a Jewish individual during that time who was blinded while Christ was here and may have even helped to imprison men like Paul....who later began to see the change in the Gentile Christians and how they seemed to really love one another and help others....who then became a little jealous of what they appeared to have and began to really research this "Christianity" thing more closely....who then left his unbelief and come to saving faith? Wouldn't this be the "individual" within the group that Paul may have been addressing in Romans 11:14?

In the very next verse, Paul says, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Exactly. Who are the people who are willing and running after God? Who are trying to keep all the laws and rules to earn their way to eternal life? ISRAEL. So, Paul is saying, it doesn't depend on your works, it doesn't depend on how much you want to be righteous, it instead depend on God who shows mercy to whoever he wants to show mercy, even dirty sinful Gentiles.

Paul is speaking of individuals in Romans 9,

Actually, just like Romans 11 he is speaking of nations, but individuals ARE included. What is true of the whole is true of at least some individual parts within that whole.

Paul proves he is addressing nations with his summary statement at the end of the chapter: 30 What should we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness-namely the righteousness that comes from faith. 31 But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. 32 Why is that? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

elaborating on his comment concerning the "children of the promise" that are also identified as the "elect" from both Jew and Gentiles and/or the "remnant" from the Jews.

I see where it speaks of the elect of Israel, the Remnant reserved from the hardening process and appointed to take the message to the world. However, can you point to where it speaks of individuals elected out of the Gentiles?

I understand what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree.

One thing that must be kept in mind is that Paul has already revealed that the elect most certainly will be saved and will, therefore, be branches on the tree that will not be cut off.

Actually, it specifically says, "the elect did find it. The rest were hardened." So, the remnant God had reserved from the hardening were individually chosen and effectually called for a noble purpose. And I agree, they have been grafted in and will be saved. But don't confuse God's appointing of his divinely inspired apostles with the manner in which he desires all to be saved, by faith through their message of reconciliation.

God has a history of individually selecting messengers and effectually calling them to deliver his message. (Jonah for example) But proving God individually selected and effectually made Jonah preach to Nineveh, in NO WAY proves God has individually selected and effectually called those who believed that prophet's message. Make sense?

Again, the elect remnant of the Jews will most certainly be saved and grafted into the tree.

agreed. They have been saved and are appointed as messengers to the world.

 

[canadyjd]

Well, do you see any problem with saying there was a Jewish individual during that time who was blinded while Christ was here and may have even helped to imprison men like Paul....who later began to see the change in the Gentile Christians and how they seemed to really love one another and help others....who then became a little jealous of what they appeared to have and began to really research this "Christianity" thing more closely....who then left his unbelief and come to saving faith? Wouldn't this be the "individual" within the group that Paul may have been addressing in Romans 11:14?

Perhaps Paul, himself, was such an individual. What's your point?

Actually, just like Romans 11 he is speaking of nations, but individuals ARE included. What is true of the whole is true of at least some individual parts within that whole.

Paul proves he is addressing nations with his summary statement at the end of the chapter....:

Actually, as I said, Paul begins his point concerning individuals "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" and then expands his point to speak of Jews and Gentiles generally.

This is seen in v.19-21 where he speaks of an individual talking back to God; "who are you, Oh man, who answers back to God?" and of the potter making vessels (pots) "one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use". He is speaking of individuals here. He speaks of specific persons; Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh to make his point.

I don't see how the analogy makes sense if the vessels are Jews and Gentiles, in general, instead of individuals, because the "elect" come from both Jews and Gentiles.

If Paul is speaking generally of Jews and Gentiles, then one group or the other is considered an honorable vessel and the other is considered a common vessel. One group or the other is considered a vessel of mercy and the other is considered a vessel of wrath.

I don't think the context can support that view.

I see where it speaks of the elect of Israel, the Remnant reserved from the hardening process and appointed to take the message to the world. However, can you point to where it speaks of individuals elected out of the Gentiles?

In his analogy of the vessels, Paul says in v.23-24 "And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (24)even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

Back in chp.8, Paul speaks of those whom God foreknew, predestined, called, justified and glorfied. These are the "elect" of 8v.33. The "elect" are also called the "children of the promise" found in chp. 9 v.8. These are also called the "vessels of mercy" in 9v.23.

These "elect" come "not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

Paul then begins to expand his arugment to speak of Jews and Gentiles in general.

God has a history of individually selecting messengers and effectually calling them to deliver his message. (Jonah for example) But proving God individually selected and effectually made Jonah preach to Nineveh, in NO WAY proves God has individually selected and effectually called those who believed that prophet's message. Make sense?

It makes sense, it just doesn't fit the context of the passage. Clearly, Paul is speaking of the "elect" of God as those who are being saved.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

Perhaps Paul, himself, was such an individual. What's your point?

Actually, Paul was one of the "elect" remnant who was individually chosen and effectually called. That blinding light experience on the road to damascus is what set him apart from the rest as one with apostolic authority. Someone who believed in Christ because of his ministry is who I was referring to.

My point is, that just because an INDIVIDUAL is spoken of in Romans 9 as being hardened or cut off doesn't mean they are the non-elect reprobates (as Calvinists typically presume). It simply means the have been cut off, but they can be grafted back in. This is why I don't mind considering all of Romans 9-11 discourse as a including general discussion about nations and the individuals who make up those nations.

Actually, as I said, Paul begins his point concerning individuals "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" and then expands his point to speak of Jews and Gentiles generally.

This is seen in v.19-21 where he speaks of an individual talking back to God; "who are you, Oh man, who answers back to God?" and of the potter making vessels (pots) "one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use". .

Again, I don't disagree, but this is the SAME as Romans 11. There is nothing more "individualized" than when he says, "if I can somehow make my own people jealous and save some of them."

"SOME of them" is a reference to individuals within the group of those being hardened. Right?

And who do you think the "individual" is in Rom 9 who Paul thinks would make this objection? One of two options:

1. The reprobate who was born Totally Depraved never having hope of Salvation because God didn't elect him?

OR

2. The Jew who is being blinded/cut off from the tree until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in? (The same rebellious Jew that God held His hand out to for so long referenced in Rom 10:21)

Support your answer.

He is speaking of individuals here. He speaks of specific persons; Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh to make his point

Again, I agree, but as I've argued, we don't know the eternal salvation of Esau...its not about whether they were chosen for salvation or not. It was being chosen to be grafted in the tree...to receive the promise/revelation of God so as to enter covenant with God. Just like the tree analogy is NOT about Salvation and being cut off from the tree is NOT losing salvation, so too being hardened is NOT about being someone who could never have been saved. Understand?

I don't see how the analogy makes sense if the vessels are Jews and Gentiles, in general, instead of individuals, because the "elect" come from both Jews and Gentiles.

Again, I hope you understand that I am fine to talk about individuals in this passage as long as you follow the same method all the way through this whole discourse.

Who is an example of an individual Jews who was reserved from Israel's hardening and picked for a noble purpose? Paul, Peter, Timothy etc....right?

Who is an example of an individual Jew who was hardened and chosen to be a vessel of common use?

So what is represented by the same "lump of clay?" Israel. Who has two groups of individuals being formed by the potter. (1) Those chosen for noble purposes (apostleship) and (2) those chosen for common use (cut off/hardened in their already rebellious ways).

If Paul is speaking generally of Jews and Gentiles, then one group or the other is considered an honorable vessel and the other is considered a common vessel. One group or the other is considered a vessel of mercy and the other is considered a vessel of wrath.

Hopefully my explanation clarified this. The two groups are not Jew and the Gentiles because they are not "of the same lump of clay." The two groups are the hardened Jews and the remnant of Israel. And the hardened ones have prepared or fitted themselves for wrath, meaning despite God longsuffering patience toward them and "holding out his hands to them" (Rm 10:21), they rebelled and deserve God's wrath, though they might still be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief (Rm. 11:21). And the Gentiles too, are being called to faith (ingrafted into the tree), which is why Paul ends saying, "us whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles..."

Understand my view? Again, I know you might not agree, but my goal is just to get you to fully understand my perspective and why so many people accept it.

I'll stop there for now and let you comment...

 

[canadyjd]

.....My point is, that just because an INDIVIDUAL is spoken of in Romans 9 as being hardened or cut off doesn't mean they are the non-elect reprobates (as Calvinists typically presume).

First, I don't know what Calvinists typically presume.

Second, the use of "hardens" in chp. 9 v.18 is speaking of an individual... Pharoah... and he is a Gentile and a reprobate.

I said:

Actually, as I said, Paul begins his point concerning individuals "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" and then expands his point to speak of Jews and Gentiles generally.

This is seen in v.19-21 where he speaks of an individual talking back to God; "who are you, Oh man, who answers back to God?" and of the potter making vessels (pots) "one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use". .

You responded:

.....but this is the SAME as Romans 11. There is nothing more "individualized" than when he says, "if I can somehow make my own people jealous and save some of them."

It is not the same, as I already demonstrated.

And who do you think the "individual" is in Rom 9 who Paul thinks would make this objection? One of two options:

1. The reprobate...
OR
2. The Jew who is being blinded/cut off ...

Support your answer.

The individual is the hypothetical interlocutor that Paul is using to make his point. It is someone who is accusing God of being unfair because God choses whom He will saved based on His own mercy and not on what they do. Chap. 9v.14+

.....so too being hardened is NOT about being someone who could never have been saved. Understand?

This is where your focus on the individual in chp. 11 is distorting what is being taught in the passage.

Chap 9, and it's focus on the individual is talking about the "elect" being a vessels of mercy (of both Jew and Gentile). The use of "hardens" in chp. 9 is specifically concerning Pharoah.

Chp. 9 is talking specifically about God choses whom He will for salvation and showing that person mercy and compassion.

When Paul expands the argument to talk about the Jews and Gentiles generally, he speaks of the "hardening" and being "cut off" or "grafted in".

Paul doesn't speak of absolutes, as you said. Not every Jew is "hardened". There are some who are saved. Not every Gentile is grafted in. There are many who are not.

His purpose of the whole discourse about the tree and the branches is to remind the Gentile Christians not to be proud or look down upon Jews.

So what is represented by the same "lump of clay?" Israel. Who has two groups of individuals being formed by the potter. (1) Those chosen for noble purposes (apostleship) and (2) those chosen for common use (cut off/hardened in their already rebellious ways).

I don't believe the lump of clay in chp. 9 represents Israel, for a couple of reasons. First, the discussion arises out of the discourse concerning Pharoah. He was not part of Israel and was a vessel of common use/vessel of wrath created for that very purpose. Also, because the vessels of mercy include the Gentiles.

...The two groups are not Jew and the Gentiles because they are not "of the same lump of clay." The two groups are the hardened Jews and the remnant of Israel. And the hardened ones have prepared or fitted themselves for wrath, meaning despite God longsuffering patience toward them and "holding out his hands to them" (Rm 10:21), they rebelled and deserve God's wrath, though they might still be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief (Rm. 11:21). And the Gentiles too, are being called to faith (ingrafted into the tree), which is why Paul ends saying, "us whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles..."

There is so much in this to critique, I honestly don't know where to start. You are combining/substituting/switching back and forth throughout chp.9-11, ignoring, IMHO, the contexts to attempt to make a point that isn't supported.

First, the "two groups" from the same lump of clay in Chp. 9 are identified as 1. vessels of mercy and 2. vessels of wrath. The vessels of mercy include Jews and Gentiles. These are the elect of God chosen for salvation. The vessels of wrath include Jews and Gentiles. These are the non-elect.

The "two groups" from chp. 11 are 1. branches from the cultivated olive tree and 2. branches from the wild olive tree. The first are Jews and the second are Gentiles.

Second, to say the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction is contrary to chap. 9v.22 which clearly says God prepared them beforehand for destruction.

Thirdly, you switched Paul's argument for the "elect" or vessels of mercy, which includes the Gentiles, and transplanted it into chp. 11 and the grafting into the tree.

Understand my view? Again, I know you might not agree, but my goal is just to get you to fully understand my perspective and why so many people accept it.

I have to admit, you are confusing. It appears you have something to say, but either don't know how to say it plainly or you are attempting to get me to say it for you.

It seems you believe the discussion about the "elect" refer only to apostles, but that is contrary to the context. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

Given the nature of so many of your threads, I suspect you believe these passages teach something about man's free-will or something that undermines "calvinism" in your view.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

Second, the use of "hardens" in chp. 9 v.18 is speaking of an individual... Pharoah... and he is a Gentile and a reprobate.

Yes, and I've acknowledged that. Pharaoh is an example of one who was blinded in his rebellion from the obvious truth for a time so as for God to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption. Likewise, Israel now is being blinded in their rebellion from the obvious truth for a time so as for God to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption. What is SOOO cool about this is that both acts of judicial hardening, the first with Pharaoh and the second with Israel, lead to the PASSOVER.

The story of the Exodus is a perfect historical narrative that foreshadows what is to come. Jesus is compared to Moses, the one who has come to bring freedom!

So, as I have said, the purpose in God's hardening Pharaoh wasn't about his individual "salvation," though he very well did die in his rebellion, the story is about God sealing him in his rebellion so as to accomplish a great purpose through him.

I said: You responded:
It is not the same, as I already demonstrated

.

I'm sorry, but when did you ever "demonstrate" that Paul's words, "if I can somehow make my own people jealous and save some of them," is not applicable to individuals? Explain to me how this couldn't apply to individuals. How does "Israel" generally speaking have "some" who might be provoked to envy and saved if "some" doesn't apply to individuals within that group?

The individual is the hypothetical interlocutor that Paul is using to make his point. It is someone who is accusing God of being unfair because God choses whom He will saved based on His own mercy and not on what they do

. Actually, it is someone accusing God of being unfair because God choses to whom He will "show mercy" based on His own mercy and whom he will "hardened" based upon his plan of redemption and NOT based upon what they do or what lineage they are born into.

The problem you keep having is equating "SHOWING MERCY" with "CERTAIN SALVATION," and equating "HARDENING" with "CERTAIN CONDEMNATION."

But, as I have demonstrated, there are many shown mercy who are not saved (first to the Jews: Rm 10:21 and then to the Gentile: Rm 11:32b "so that He may have mercy on all.")

And there are some who have been hardened who are saved (First the Gentile: Rm 11:32a "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience," and now the Jew, Rm 11:14: "if I can somehow make my own people jealous and save some of them.")

Paul doesn't speak of absolutes, as you said. Not every Jew is "hardened". There are some who are saved. Not every Gentile is grafted in. There are many who are not.

Again, you are treating the "tree" as if it means "salvation," which is why you say, "not every Gentile is grafted in," but that is clearly not correct. Paul explains, "God has bound all men over to disobedience (cut off) so that he might show mercy to all (graft in)."

Where in this passage does Paul ever (1) refer to any part of the Gentiles not being grafted in? And where anywhere in scripture does any refer to a Gentile as the "elect," because that is a term typically reserved for the remnant of Israel, right?

His purpose of the whole discourse about the tree and the branches is to remind the Gentile Christians not to be proud or look down upon Jews.

I agree, and what is the threat if they do become arrogant? They too can be "cut off," right? Does that mean individual Gentiles might be saved and then lost? NO. Neither one of us believe that. So what does the threat mean? It means that if the Gentile people (generally speaking) become like Israel (generally speaking) and begin to get arrogant (like the Pharisees) that they too might be cut off from the revelation of God/promises of God.

I don't believe the lump of clay in chp. 9 represents Israel, for a couple of reasons. First, the discussion arises out of the discourse concerning Pharoah. He was not part of Israel and was a vessel of common use/vessel of wrath created for that very purpose. Also, because the vessels of mercy include the Gentiles.There is so much in this to critique, I honestly don't know where to start. You are combining/substituting/switching back and forth throughout chp.9-11, ignoring, IMHO, the contexts to attempt to make a point that isn't supported.

I know it seems that way from your perspective. Believe me I know. It is very difficult to read a text from another perspective when you have become so used to reading it from you perspective alone. But, honestly, this is NOT what you have described. In fact, my explanation is MUCH simpler and makes Romans 11 seem so much more clear, IMO.

Hopefully, my explanation about the foreshadowing of Pharaoh will help you follow the flow that I have presented. I'm not denying that there are both Jews and Gentiles who are vessels of honor and dishonor. But, just as you do when looking at Romans 11 you must follow Paul's INTENT.

Was he communicating that humanity is same lump of clay from which God has formed some individuals from birth for destruction without hope of salvation and others for certain salvation?

OR

Was he communicating that God has a lump of rebellious clay (Israel) "who he has held out his hands to all day long" (Rm 10:21) and who he has "endured with much long-suffering (9:22) that he is now taking and forming some into vessels of noble purpose (i.e. Rebellious Saul becomes Apostle Paul) and he is forming from this SAME lump of Israel other vessels who He blinds in their rebellion so they crucify the Savior and make way for the Gentiles...who yes he is ALSO showing mercy (9:24).

Now, honestly, and objectively looking at all of Romans 9-11 which of these two view is most supported? The very explicit teaching that God has "held out his hands in patience" and "longed to gather Israel under his wings of salvation" PROVES that the first option is completely contrary to God's desire or what Paul believes about God.

Consider this, Paul begins chapter 9 expressing the greatest level of love that a man can express for his hardened fellow countrymen, and yet do you really believe the Paul taught that God loved these countryman any less than he? If indeed these hardened/cut off souls are so despised as to be born without hope of salvation and made for the very purpose of being condemned why would Paul love them so? Is Paul more loving than our Lord? Is Paul more merciful than God?

First, the "two groups" from the same lump of clay in Chp. 9 are identified as 1. vessels of mercy and 2. vessels of wrath. The vessels of mercy include Jews and Gentiles. These are the elect of God chosen for salvation. The vessels of wrath include Jews and Gentiles. These are the non-elect.

The "two groups" from chp. 11 are 1. branches from the cultivated olive tree and 2. branches from the wild olive tree. The first are Jews and the second are Gentiles.

Ok, this is where we can bring some clarity. There are actually 3 groups that Paul is discussing.

1. Hardened Israel: The natural descendants of Abraham who at this time in history are being blinded and "cut off from the tree" (sent a spirit of stupor) so as not to be able to hear, see and respond in faith to the clear gospel truth. (Why? So God can accomplish a greater purpose of redemption through their rebellion.)

2. The Remnant of Israel: The natural descendants of Abraham who at this time in history are not being blinded or cut off, but instead have been chosen for the noble purpose of bringing the message of reconciliation to the world. These would include the apostles who were effectually drawn to accomplish their divine purpose as message bearers.

3. Gentiles: The non-Jews who are being grafted into the tree so that they can listen to the appeal of the message of reconciliation and respond in faith. They are not being hardened like Israel, but they will listen (Acts 28:28)

IMO, the reason the Calvinist makes a mistake in understanding Paul is that he thinks there are really 4 groups in Paul's mind:
(1) The elect of Israel (Remnant - those being shown mercy),
(2) The Non-elect of Israel (Hardened ones)
(3) The elect Gentiles (those being shown mercy)
(4) The non-elect Gentiles (? - no term because its not there)

The reason this CAN'T work is because those being hardened (group 2) might be saved according to Romans 11:14 and 23; and those being shown mercy (group 3) might be "cut off" according to verses 21 and 22.

Second, to say the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction is contrary to chap. 9v.22 which clearly says God prepared them beforehand for destruction.

I'm fine with that, but "beforehand" as in before the world began and before He held out his hands to them in patience longing to gather them, or "beforehand" as in before showing mercy to the other vessels? And after their constant rebellion and obstinate refusal to come to him? In your view, you have God seemly being disingenuously pretending to long for Israel and waiting patiently for them to repent, all while predetermining their rebellion and subsequent wrath. This is NOT the objection Paul is anticipating, this is a MUCH more severe and outrageous objection than the one Paul is answering in this passage.

 

[canadyjd]

Pharaoh is an example of one who was blinded in his rebellion from the obvious truth for a time so as for God to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption. Likewise, Israel now is being blinded in their rebellion from the obvious truth for a time so as for God to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption......So, as I have said, the purpose in God's hardening Pharaoh wasn't about his individual "salvation," though he very well did die in his rebellion, the story is about God sealing him in his rebellion so as to accomplish a great purpose through him.

You've written much more than I want to address. Let's focus of chp.9

Concerning Pharoah, it was about His individual salvation (or lack thereof) and about God accompplishing a great purpose through him. The "great purpose" is to "cause all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (chp.8:28)"

God's purpose is to bring His elect, from both Jew and Gentile, to salvation.

The focus of chp. 9 is the "elect". If you lose sight of that, you miss the point Paul is making. Your belief that the "elect" are simply the apostles appointed to preach is not supported by the text.

If you go back to chp.8 v.28 "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

He "foreknew", "predestined", "called", "justified, and "glorified"; of which nothing can separate them from the Love of God.

These "elect" are further identified as the "children of the promise" (9v.8) and they are the "children of God" and inherit the promises of God. Notice v.11, "....in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls."

God is "calling" His elect, children of promise, children of God, according to His purpose. Those He calls, He will justify and glorify. This is speaking of personal salvation. They inherit the promises of God.

Paul then appeals to scripture to strengthen His argument that it is God who choses whom He will "call" as His elect, children of promise, children of God.

v.15 "...I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

v.16 "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Paul then gives the discourse concerning the Potter and the clay, the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy. He is still speaking of God chosing whom He will call as His "elect".

The "vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" is a reference back to chp 8v.29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined..." It is referring to the "elect".

So, chp. 9 is clearly dealing with personal salvation.

peace to youraying:

The problem you keep having is equating "SHOWING MERCY" with "CERTAIN SALVATION," and equating "HARDENING" with "CERTAIN CONDEMNATION."

In the context of chp. 9, "showing mercy" is equated with bringing the elect to salvation.

As far as the hardening meaning "certain condemnation", I don't agree with that. Paul says the hardening is "partial". (11:25)

Where in this passage does Paul ever (1) refer to any part of the Gentiles not being grafted in?

Paul identifies the wild olive branches that have been grafted into the cultivated olive tree as "you" (11:17). He is referring to Gentile Christians, not every Gentile.

Not every branch from the wild olive tree is grafted into the cultivated olive tree. The branches on the cultivated olive tree certainly refer to all the Jews. Some are cut off and some remain. In the same way, only some of the branches of the wild olive are grafted in.

And where anywhere in scripture does any refer to a Gentile as the "elect," because that is a term typically reserved for the remnant of Israel, right?

I keep repeating myself. Please read what I write, ok.

In chp. 8:28-39, Paul describes God's intervention/relationship with His "elect".(v.33). The "elect" are referred to as "us" (vv.31,32,34,35,37,39). The "us" refers to Christians, both Jewish (like Paul) and Gentiles (Roman Christians).

These "elect" are referred to in chp. 9 as "children of the promise" and "children of God)(v.8). They are also the "vessels of honor" and "vessels of mercy" (v.21-23). The "vessels of mercy" are called "not from the Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles."

I know it seems that way from your perspective. Believe me I know. It is very difficult to read a text from another perspective when you have become so used to reading it from you perspective alone. But, honestly, this is NOT what you have described. In fact, my explanation is MUCH simpler and makes Romans 11 seem so much more clear, IMO.

The only perspective I have is to read the text in the context that it was written and believe what it says. Whether your explanation is "MUCH simpler" or not (that is debatable), it is not consistent with the context of the passage.

..., just as you do when looking at Romans 11 you must follow Paul's INTENT.

Very odd. How do you know Paul's "INTENT" beyond the context of what he has written?

Was he communicating that humanity is same lump of clay from which God has formed some individuals from birth for destruction without hope of salvation and others for certain salvation?

The focus is on the certainty of salvation. That is what it says.

Was he communicating that God has a lump of rebellious clay (Israel) "who he has held out his hands to all day long" (Rm 10:21) and who he has "endured with much long-suffering (9:22) that he is now taking and forming some into vessels of noble purpose (i.e. Rebellious Saul becomes Apostle Paul) and he is forming from this SAME lump of Israel other vessels who He blinds in their rebellion so they crucify the Savior and make way for the Gentiles...who yes he is ALSO showing mercy (9:24).

The context of chp. 9 does not support this interpretation.

The very explicit teaching that God has "held out his hands in patience" and "longed to gather Israel under his wings of salvation" PROVES that the first option is completely contrary to God's desire or what Paul believes about God.

It does no such thing.

IMO, the reason the Calvinist makes a mistake in understanding Paul is that he thinks there are really 4 groups in Paul's mind:
(1) The elect of Israel (Remnant - those being shown mercy),
(2) The Non-elect of Israel (Hardened ones)
(3) The elect Gentiles (those being shown mercy)
(4) The non-elect Gentiles (? - no term because its not there)

The reason this CAN'T work is because those being hardened (group 2) might be saved according to Romans 11:14 and 23; and those being shown mercy (group 3) might be "cut off" according to verses 21 and 22.

Your reasoning is based upon a faulty, IMHO, interpretation of chp. 9. Your focus on the "individual" in chap. 11 leads you to conclude that Paul is saying that individual Jews that are "hardened" can be grafted back in and individual Gentiles can be "cut off".

Paul is saying, in chp. 11, that generally speaking, God has hardened the Jews so the Gospel will go to the Gentiles, and at some point (depending on your interpretation of the fulness of the Gentiles), the Jews can be grafted back in (generally speaking), not individually speaking.

Paul is not saying that individual Jews will be hardened, cut off, and grafted back in. He is speaking of Jews generally... unless you believe the "fulness of the Gentiles" has already occurred? Do you believe that?

In your view, you have God seemly being disingenuously pretending to long for Israel and waiting patiently for them to repent, all while predetermining their rebellion and subsequent wrath.

We have been debating with grace and mutual respect. I will ask you not to spoil this effort by accusing me of making God the author of Israel's rebellion and believing God is being "disingenuouly pretending to long for Israel".

It is not true and nothing I have written could lead you to believe that.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

I wrote, "The very explicit teaching that God has "held out his hands in patience" and "longed to gather Israel under his wings of salvation" PROVES that the first option is completely contrary to God's desire or what Paul believes about God.

You replied: It does no such thing.

I wrote: In your view, you have God seemly being disingenuously pretending to long for Israel and waiting patiently for them to repent, all while predetermining their rebellion and subsequent wrath.

You replied: We have been debating with grace and mutual respect. I will ask you not to spoil this effort by accusing me of making God the author of Israel's rebellion and believing God is being "disingenuouly pretending to long for Israel".

It is not true and nothing I have written could lead you to believe that.

I used the world "seemly" for a reason. I'm saying that what you teach SEEMS to suggest these things and I'm asking for an explanation as to how you're view doesn't suggest that God is being "disingenuous."

Why does God express his longing to gather them and "holding out his hands to them and his patience and long-suffering with them? What does he have to be patient about when HE is the only one making any choices that effect there response? Explain why Paul points out God's longing for rebellious Israel and His patience with them if indeed the intent is as you suggest? Thanks.

 

[canadyjd]

I used the world "seemly" for a reason. I'm saying that what you teach SEEMS to suggest these things and I'm asking for an explanation as to how you're view doesn't suggest that God is being "disingenuous."

Why does God express his longing to gather them and "holding out his hands to them and his patience and long-suffering with them? What does he have to be patient about when HE is the only one making any choices that effect there response? Explain why Paul points out God's longing for rebellious Israel and His patience with them if indeed the intent is as you suggest? Thanks

The question is "what does the passage teach in Romans 9?" It is clear what it teaches in context. I have repeatedly sought to show you the context. You refuse to accept it.

What you are saying is the exact same emotional response of the interlocutor of chp. 9v.19

"You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Paul's answer, then, is my answer to you.

I appreciate our attempt address these passages of scripture in a civil way. It has run its course and I am done.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

The question is "what does the passage teach in Romans 9?" It is clear what it teaches in context. I have repeatedly sought to show you the context. You refuse to accept it.

I accepted it for 10 years, so I understand the perspective, but what is more clear to me the longer we discuss this is that you have yet to understand a position you adamantly appose. I don't mind someone disagreeing with a position they have fully vetted, but based on many of your comments I honestly don't think you have done that to this point and I beseech you to do so.

What you are saying is the exact same emotional response of the interlocutor of chp. 9v.19

"You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Paul's answer, then, is my answer to you.

When? My question had nothing to do with why God finds fault or resisting his will. My question was, "Why does God express his 'longing to gather them' and 'holding out his hands to them' and his patience and long-suffering with them if indeed He is the one who must make them willing?

The interlocutor question in verse 19 is one of hardened Jew, not a non-Calvinist.

I appreciate our attempt address these passages of scripture in a civil way. It has run its course and I am done.

People have debated this issue for generations and the best of them did it in a civil manner. May I recommend the commentary of Adam Clarke? I think he does a good job expounding on many of these issues. He mastered over 20 languages and became proficient in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee and Syriac versions of the Scripture, and learned in all the oriental languages and most of the languages of Europe. The man was above reproach in life and ministry. He is worthy of your time and study with regard to this subject. Disagree with it, fine, but please know of what you disagree.

 

[canadyjd]

People have debated this issue for generations and the best of them did it in a civil manner. May I recommend the commentary of Adam Clarke? I think he does a good job expounding on many of these issues.... The man was above reproach in life and ministry. He is worthy of your time and study with regard to this subject. Disagree with it, fine, but please know of what you disagree.

Adam Clarke is a Methodist theologian. I understand the positions he takes. I don't believe they are supported by the context of the passages in question.

I'm sure he was above reproach in his life and ministry, but so are many "calvinists" or "reformed" theologians who would disagree with him and use their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to support their positions.

My best argument, IMHO, is that I am following the context. I don't believe you are. For instance, your comment that the "elect" are the apostles is not supported by the text.

You have a stated agenda, which is to oppose "calvinism". So, you read nothing objectively, but you always look for a way to make the passage support your position and/or undermine "calvinism". That is clouding your judgment, IMHO.

I have no agenda. I come to the text objectively. I attempt to understand it in the context that it is written, believe what it says, and conform my life to that truth.

The bottom line is, we are not going to agree. We have both repeated our arguments several times. The debate has run its course. It is time to be done and move on.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

Adam Clarke is a Methodist theologian. I understand the positions he takes. I don't believe they are supported by the context of the passages in question.

I'm sure he was above reproach in his life and ministry, but so are many "calvinists" or "reformed" theologians who would disagree with him and use their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to support their positions.

My best argument, IMHO, is that I am following the context. I don't believe you are.

We both believe we are following and supported by the context of the passage, otherwise we wouldn't hold to the position we hold

For instance, your comment that the "elect" are the apostles is not supported by the text.

The "elect" or the "remnant of Israel" contain the apostles, but I'm not meaning to limit it to the 11 men. They are just examples who represent what the remnant of Israel was reserved for....to take the message to the rest of the world. This is what the prophecy says and what Paul is emphasizing. What do you think the "noble" purpose is in reference to in Romans 9? Just being saved? No, the NOBLE purpose is the purpose of taking the message to the world and fulfilling the prophecy.

You have a stated agenda, which is to oppose "calvinism". So, you read nothing objectively, but you always look for a way to make the passage support your position and/or undermine "calvinism". That is clouding your judgment, IMHO.

That is possible, but you just have to take my word for it. I WANTED SOOO bad to stay a Calvinist and when I was studying these passages I really struggled with it objectively and honestly. I believe I now hold to the correct interpretation and it really makes Romans 10 and 11 flow so much better and make so much more sense to me now. That's just my experience, believe it or don't, that is fine, but the Lord is my witness.

I have no agenda. I come to the text objectively. I attempt to understand it in the context that it is written, believe what it says, and conform my life to that truth.

I don't doubt that you are sincere. But you can be sincerely wrong. As could I.

The bottom line is, we are not going to agree. We have both repeated our arguments several times. The debate has run its course. It is time to be done and move on.

peace to youraying:

I still haven't been convinced you have a grasp on my perspective. I know its asking a lot but in your own words how would you summarize what I believe about this passage.

 

[Winman]

Skandelon, I think you have done a good job explaining Romans 9. The problem is that many do not understand that Paul was speaking to Jews who knew the OT scriptures. When Paul speaks of the potter having power over the clay in Romans 9, the Jews present would have immediately recognized that Paul was referring to Jeremiah chapter 18 where God originally speaks of the potter having power over the clay. And in Jeremiah 18 God was speaking of nations and his power to build up, or pluck down. But God did not do this without just reason.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Now take this verse and compare it to Jeremiah 18.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

In vs. 6 God declares that as a potter he has a right to do whatsoever he pleases with the clay in his hands. Notice in verses 7-8 he speaks of a nation that he has intentions to destroy, but says if they turn from their evil he will repent of the evil he intended to do unto them.

Notice in verses 9-10 he says the opposite, here he speaks of a nation he intended to build and plant, and here says if they do evil and will not obey his voice, then he will repent of the good he had intended to show them.

So, when reading these verses concerning the potter in Romans 9 you have to understand the Jews would understand Paul of referring to Jeremiah 18. Yes, God in his sovereignty has the right to do whatsoever he pleases with any man or nation, but God is not arbitrarily choosing to destroy one person or nation and blessing another person or nation without just cause.

You cannot understand the NT unless you have a good knowledge of the OT.

 

[Skandelon]

You are absolutely correct Winman.

As it says: Jer 18:8 However, if that nation I have made an announcement about, turns from its evil, I will not bring the disaster on it I had prepared.

Calvinists point to how God has PREPARED or PLANNED for the destruction of these certain vessels, but they ignore this passage that clearly states that God can and does relent in his preparation to destroy IF someone turns from his evil ways. Romans 11:14, 21 supports this as Paul anticipates some who are being hardened to turn and be saved.

Also, Paul supports this view of the potter with vessels in 2 Tim 20, which says, "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. 21 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.

CLEARLY Paul and the OT verses to which Paul refers (Jer 18) teach that the vessels have a role to play in their being used for honor or dishonor. I never saw this as a Calvinists and many Calvinists today are blind to it IMO.

 

[AresMan]

Showing mercy to Gentiles doesn't necessitate that every Gentile will be saved, just as grafting in the Gentiles doesn't necessitate that every Gentile will be saved. It simply means God is giving them the promise...the divine revelation, by which they can be saved.

Yes, He shall save His people from their sins, just as was prophesied throughout the Old Testament. His people would include a remnant of Jews and a portion of Gentiles. He would be the Root of Jesse that the Gentiles would seek. He would provoke the Israelites to jealousy by a "foolish nation." He would call them His people who were not His people.

Hardening Israel doesn't necessitate that every Jew will be condemned to hell, just as cutting off the Jews doesn't necessitate that every Jew will be condemned. It simply means God is blinding them from the divine revelation, otherwise they might, see, hear, understand and repent. (which is NOT God's desire at this time...He wants the Gentiles to become established first.)

I agree with this. I have always understood the branches and grafting in Romans 11 to be about the Jews and Gentiles in general.

However, within these groups are elect individuals. The proportion of saved Jews to saved Gentiles is relatively lower and illustrates the "big picture" of the grafting and branches.

Romans 11:1-6 shows why the Jews have been "cut off." They were cut off because they rejected their Messiah. However, God still provided a remnant as He promised and prophesied. Just as He reserved (not observed) seven thousand men not to bow to Baal, He provided a remnant of Jews according to the election of grace.

Romans 9:27-29 provides some of this context as well. God promised a remnant of Israel would be saved. He left a seed. If He did not leave a seed, the entire nation would have been as Sodom and Gomorrah.

The reason that the Jews as a whole rejected their Messiah was because of their own willful sin. The reason that there is a remnant that believe is because of God's grace. This remnant did not deserve God's grace any more than the rest of the nation. They are the way they are because God saved a remnant. He finished the work. He cut it short in righteousness. He left a seed. He reserved them to Himself. He elected them according to grace. If God did not do all this on behalf of this remnant, they would not have been a remnant at all.

 

[canadyjd]

We both believe we are following and supported by the context of the passage, otherwise we wouldn't hold to the position we hold

No sir, that isn't true. You have admitted that chps. 10-11 are speaking of Jews and Gentiles generally. But the foundation of your argument is that Paul is actually speaking of individuals and then you speculate on that.

....remnant of Israel was reserved for....to take the message to the rest of the world. This is what the prophecy says and what Paul is emphasizing. What do you think the "noble" purpose is in reference to in Romans 9? Just being saved? No, the NOBLE purpose is the purpose of taking the message to the world and fulfilling the prophecy.

I don't see the word "noble" in chp.9. Please point that out to me.

The reference to "purpose" in chp. 9 is referring to Pharoah, not the remnant.

This is just one more example of how you take the passage out of context, mix and match, and attempt to prove a point against calvinism.

That is possible, but you just have to take my word for it. I WANTED SOOO bad to stay a Calvinist and when I was studying these passages I really struggled with it objectively and honestly. I believe I now hold to the correct interpretation and it really makes Romans 10 and 11 flow so much better and make so much more sense to me now. That's just my experience, believe it or don't, that is fine, but the Lord is my witness.

I ususally just take people at their word since I have no reason to doubt what they are saying. However, I must admit to being perplexed concerning you.

You claim to have been an ardent "calvinist" for 10 years, and yet you can't really articulate the "calvinist" argument for these passages.

Instead, you repeat the same old arguments against reformed doctrine. You point me to Adam Clarke as a theologian that I should study, but can't really explain why he is any more informed than any of the prominent "calvinists" of the same period.

Are you a Methodist, pretending to be a Baptist who used to be a calvinist but has now embranced arminianism?:smilewinkgrin:

I still haven't been convinced you have a grasp on my perspective. I know its asking a lot but in your own words how would you summarize what I believe about this passage.

IMHO, you believe...

1. "foreknew" (8:29) means foreknowledge of who will believe.

2. God's "elect" refer to remnant Israel and no one else. Among these "elect" are the Apostles and Jews who will take the gospel to the world.

3. Except for the remnant, Israel has been "judicially hardened" by God because of their rebellion.

4. This judicial hardening accomplished the gospel going to the Gentiles, giving them the opportunity to exercise their free will and be saved. This is evidenced by the grafting language of chp.11.

5. "hardening" doesn't mean non-elect or unsaved. Those who are "hardened" can be saved at anytime, should they exercise their free will and accept Jesus Christ as Savior. This is evidenced by the grafting language of chp.11.

6. If God choses who will be saved, then God is disengenuous when scripture says He holds out His hands to Israel. IOW's, God is a liar if He choses who will be saved because scripture says He held out His hands to people of whom He knew would not be saved.

Please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your position. However...

....since you are a former calvinist for 10 years, would you please tell me how a calvinist would answer each of these points? What scripture would the calvinist use to support his argument? How would the calvinist anticipate the arminian response?

If you can't accurately articulate the calvinist's argument, how can I be convinced that you are sincere about being a calvinist for 10 years?

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

No sir, that isn't true. You have admitted that chps. 10-11 are speaking of Jews and Gentiles generally. But the foundation of your argument is that Paul is actually speaking of individuals and then you speculate on that. I don't see the word "noble" in chp.9. Please point that out to me.

This is what I'm talking about. You still don't understand my perspective. I am interpreting all 3 chapters exactly the same. They are ALL speaking generally about the Hardened Jews, the Remnant of Israel and Gentiles. I don't switch from saying he is speaking about individuals in one chapter and then not individuals in another chapter. I am consistent all the way through. Paul is speaking about nations which are made up of individuals and when God hardened (cuts off) a nation that necessitates that individuals within that nation have been hardened/cut off, and those same people still can be saved. One thing I have on my side is that I'm consistent. You're method is not. In Romans nine you interpret Paul one way and in Romans 11 you interpret him another so as to make it fit you system.

The reference to "purpose" in chp. 9 is referring to Pharoah, not the remnant.

Yes, but don't you see that the purpose in hardened Pharaoh is the same as his purpose in hardening Israel? Just as his purpose is sending Moses is a foreshadowing of his purpose in sending Christ?

There is a "noble purpose" and a "common use/purpose" spoken of in the text, right? Some Jews are being hardened (common) and other Jews are being use as apostles (noble). I don't know how that could be much more clear.

This is just one more example of how you take the passage out of context, mix and match, and attempt to prove a point against calvinism.

Only a Calvinist would think that because you presume that the context is supporting Calvinism. The CONTEXT is God hardening Israel, reserving a remnant from Israel to take the message of reconciliation to the world and the world (all non-Jews) hearing that God loves them and whosoever believes in him shall be saved. That is the context, plain and simple.

I ususally just take people at their word since I have no reason to doubt what they are saying. However, I must admit to being perplexed concerning you.

You claim to have been an ardent "calvinist" for 10 years, and yet you can't really articulate the "calvinist" argument for these passages

.

I can't? How do you know since all I have been doing is articulating my views?

Instead, you repeat the same old arguments against reformed doctrine. You point me to Adam Clarke as a theologian that I should study, but can't really explain why he is any more informed than any of the prominent "calvinists" of the same period.

I wasn't attempting to say that you should listen to him because is "more informed" than those who believe what you do. I just happen to think his interpretation of this passage is correct and want you to read it so you could at least understand it.

Are you a Methodist, pretending to be a Baptist who used to be a calvinist but has now embranced arminianism?:smilewinkgrin:

Calvin and many Reformers believed in infant baptism and would have many differences with modern day "baptists," what is your point? Don't label and dismiss someones scholarship without really grappling with their claims first.

IMHO, you believe...

1. "foreknew" (8:29) means foreknowledge of who will believe.

incorrect

2. God's "elect" refer to remnant Israel and no one else. Among these "elect" are the Apostles and Jews who will take the gospel to the world

partially incorrect

3. Except for the remnant, Israel has been "judicially hardened" by God because of their rebellion.

4. This judicial hardening accomplished the gospel going to the Gentiles, giving them the opportunity to exercise their free will and be saved. This is evidenced by the grafting language of chp.11.

Correct

5. "hardening" doesn't mean non-elect or unsaved. Those who are "hardened" can be saved at anytime, should they exercise their free will and accept Jesus Christ as Savior. This is evidenced by the grafting language of chp.11.

partially incorrect

6. If God choses who will be saved, then God is disengenuous when scripture says He holds out His hands to Israel. IOW's, God is a liar if He choses who will be saved because scripture says He held out His hands to people of whom He knew would not be saved.

Incorrect

Grade: D (thus the Adam Clarke commentary)

Please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your position. However...

....since you are a former calvinist for 10 years, would you please tell me how a calvinist would answer each of these points? What scripture would the calvinist use to support his argument? How would the calvinist anticipate the arminian response?

If you can't accurately articulate the calvinist's argument, how can I be convinced that you are sincere about being a calvinist for 10 years?

Calvinists views as they collate to what you have presented:
1. Foreknew means to intimately know before, not just to look through the corridors of time.

2. God's elect are those he has individual chosen to save from before the foundation of the earth to the praise of his glory and grace...He has chosen individuals from all people groups (Jew and Gentiles)

3. Except for the remnant who were chosen by God unto salvation, Israel has been "judicially hardened" by God because they were not elected to salvation.

4. This judicial hardening accomplished doubling blinding the non-elect reprobates who were born totally depraved heaping further condemnation on them in order to display the powerful wrath and justice of our God and help the elect ones really appreciate mercy.

5. Judicial Hardening is for those who are non-elect. Those who are "judicially hardened" can't be saved at anytime, because God hasn't chosen them and effectually called them to salvation.

6. God choses who will be saved, and His expressions of longing for Israel to come to him and holding out his hands to them are anthropomorphic in nature. IOWs, this is language giving God human like characteristics to bring clarity to finite creatures, but in reality God did not choose those who are unwilling and thus didn't really "want" them to come to him. His invitations, longings and expressions of patience for these people is only to show their rebellion and corruption more clearly so as to further expose them for who they are; un-chosen depraved reprobates from birth to death without ever having hope of salvation.

How did I do?

 

[The Archangel]

There is a "noble purpose" and a "common use/purpose" spoken of in the text, right? Some Jews are being hardened (common) and other Jews are being use as apostles (noble). I don't know how that could be much more clear.

Only a Calvinist would think that because you presume that the context is supporting Calvinism. The CONTEXT is God hardening Israel, reserving a remnant from Israel to take the message of reconciliation to the world and the world (all non-Jews) hearing that God loves them and whosoever believes in him shall be saved. That is the context, plain and simple.

I honestly don't know how you get the noble purpose is that of an apostle. I don't think you can get that from this text without a goodly amount of in-reading.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[canadyjd]

This is what I'm talking about. You still don't understand my perspective. I am interpreting all 3 chapters exactly the same. They are ALL speaking generally about the Hardened Jews, the Remnant of Israel and Gentiles.... One thing I have on my side is that I'm consistent. You're method is not. In Romans nine you interpret Paul one way and in Romans 11 you interpret him another so as to make it fit you system.

I have explained why the language in Romans 9, in context, does not fit speaking "generally" of Israel and Gentiles. It is personal in nature. So, in context, to see a "consistent" general message to Jews and Gentiles is not warranted.

Yes, but don't you see that the purpose in hardened Pharaoh is the same as his purpose in hardening Israel? Just as his purpose is sending Moses is a foreshadowing of his purpose in sending Christ?

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose..." 8:28. I think I mentioned that.

Some Jews are being hardened (common) and other Jews are being use as apostles (noble). I don't know how that could be much more clear.

Well, since "apostle" isn't mentioned anywhere in the text, I don't understand how you can proclaim this interpretation to be "clear".

Only a Calvinist would think that because you presume that the context is supporting Calvinism.

As I said, I'm not a calvinist.

canadyjd said:

Are you a Methodist, pretending to be a Baptist who used to be a calvinist but has now embranced arminianism?

skandelon responded:

Calvin and many Reformers believed in infant baptism and would have many differences with modern day "baptists," what is your point? Don't label and dismiss someones scholarship without really grappling with their claims first.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

And you assume I don't "grapple" with scripture and other people's interpretation thereof. That isn't true.

incorrect,partially incorrect,correct,partially incorrect,Incorrect

Grade: D (thus the Adam Clarke commentary)

I followed the link and read (attempted to read) the commentary on Rom. 9-11. It was, as I susupected, the arminian perspective. Nothing new.

Concerning your attempt to articulate calvinist doctrine, I can only tell you what I believe, since I'm not a calvinist. I have read from others about reformed doctrine, however.

1. Foreknew means to intimately know before, not just to look through the corridors of time.

partially correct which equals incorrect. Nothing about looking through the corridors of time is needed to understand "foreknew".

2. God's elect are those he has individual chosen to save from before the foundation of the earth to the praise of his glory and grace...He has chosen individuals from all people groups (Jew and Gentiles)

correct

3. Except for the remnant who were chosen by God unto salvation, Israel has been "judicially hardened" by God because they were not elected to salvation.

Incorrect. They were "hardened" because of their rebellion against God and His Law.

4. This judicial hardening accomplished doubling blinding the non-elect reprobates who were born totally depraved heaping further condemnation on them in order to display the powerful wrath and justice of our God and help the elect ones really appreciate mercy.

? Never heard this before.. but then again, I'm not a calvinist.

5. Judicial Hardening is for those who are non-elect. Those who are "judicially hardened" can't be saved at anytime, because God hasn't chosen them and effectually called them to salvation.

Incorrect. Judicial hardening refers generally to Jews and is partial, meaning some will be saved. It will be lifted at some point. Perhaps all Jews will be saved at that point.

6. God choses who will be saved, and His expressions of longing for Israel to come to him and holding out his hands to them are anthropomorphic in nature. IOWs, this is language giving God human like characteristics to bring clarity to finite creatures, but in reality God did not choose those who are unwilling and thus didn't really "want" them to come to him.....

Incorrect. God's expressions of longing and love are genuine. He really does want everyone to repent and believe. No one responds favorably to His expressions, because no one is able due to sin. God, of course, knows this, but that doesn't make His expressions any less genuine. God, in His mercy, actively intervenes and saves those He has chosen.

His invitations, longings and expressions of patience for these people is only to show their rebellion and corruption more clearly so as to further expose them for who they are; un-chosen depraved reprobates from birth to death without ever having hope of salvation.

Incorrect. Although the result is that their rebellion (and God's love) is more clearly shown, that is not the "only" reason that God makes His invitations.

How did I do?

Quite frankly, rather poorly.

Although I was just kidding before, I have to admit that you really do sound like a Methodist, pretending to be a Baptist who used to be a calvinist and has now embraced arminianism.

I think you are a man who has deep convictions on these issues. I pray before God that you have not compromised your integrity in this pursuit.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you. But since you really can't articulate reformed doctrine very well, and you didn't answer my question directly before, please tell me plainly that you are not pretending to be a baptist or pretending that you used to be a calvinist.

If you tell me that you are not pretending on these issues, I will believe you and never bring it up again.

peace to youraying: