Ask Away

[Aaron]

Correct. "That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

The recruits are those the recruiter has chosen.
The recruits are those the recruiter as qualified for service
The recruits are those will be trained to defend our country

Does that suggest the recruiter didn't attempt to recruit any other people? No. You would have to presume that, which is what you do regarding the word "elect."

The Creator created some vessels unto honor, and some unto dishonor. That doesn't mean He tried to create other vessels.

 

[Skandelon]

Did the man who is as a branch that is cut off the Vine ever truly abide in the Vine to begin with? John 15:4-6.

If you wrongly make the tree represent salvation by which men lose it by being 'cut off' of it, or saved again by be 'grafted back in again' then you create this dilemma. My interpretation has no such dilemma, because I rightly understand the tree to represent the "gospel church," the gracious means by which men may be saved through faith.

Thus, those who

(1) stumble over it,
(2) are cut off from it, or
(3) are hardened to it,

May...

(1) "recover"
(2) "be grafted back in again"
(3) "provoked to envy and saved."

All of which Paul anticipates as possible, but you deny as an impossibility.

 

[Skandelon]

The Creator created some vessels unto honor, and some unto dishonor.

Yes, he chose Paul for the noble purpose of apostleship, while leaving his fellow Pharisees in their hardened, cut off, stumbling condition, but have they (the fellow countrymen that he dearly loves) stumbled beyond recovery?

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

They may be provoked to envy by the Gentiles and come to salvation. They may leave their unbelief and be grafted back into the tree. God bounds all of them over to disobedience (hardens them) so as to have mercy on them all.

 

[Aaron]

Did the man who is as a branch that is cut off the Vine ever truly abide in the Vine to begin with? John 15:4-6.

Since Scandal did not answer the question, I will. No. So, you see, a man that does not abide in Christ is like a branch that is cut off. The point in the comparison isn't that a branch was one time attached. There is no living in Christ and then not living in Christ. The point is that it's cut off from Christ and withered and destined for the fire. You're just too hung up on your 20th Century, Postmodern literary devices to see it.

As it is ludicrous to assert the branch that is cut off from the Vine ever truly abided, it's even more ludicrous to insist that those cut off the Olive tree would have had to have been truly Israel, and work backwards from that one arbitrary presupposition to redifine the tree and build an entire theological system thereon. It's a non sequitur. Your system is the Nebraska Man of hermeneutics. We're presented with a tree that has some wild branches grafted in and natural branches cut off. The cutting off and the grafting in is not seen. The end result is the point, not horticulture.

And by the way, the Gospel Church is an entity, not a method or means. You need to join the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I said I wouldn't quibble over your trifles. I've answered your main question. Moving on . . .

 

[Skandelon]

Since Scandal did not answer the question, I will. No. So, you see, a man that does not abide in Christ is like a branch that is cut off. The point in the comparison isn't that a branch was one time attached.

Non-sequitor. There is nothing in scripture telling us that Christ analogy is equal to that of Paul's in a completely different context. In light of Paul's explicit teaching regarding one being grafted back in again and even your own admission that Paul is addressing 'natural Israel' and not those abiding in Christ proves that is the case.

So, while their analogies are both related to trees and vines and their branches their is nothing connecting the two as being parallel comparisons, is there?

Secondly, there could be an argument made that one can appear to be abiding in Christ (as explained in Heb 6) from the human perspective who then would be "cut off" if they no longer abided in Him, but once again that would be a different theological matter being addressed all together.

Thirdly, the very concept of "redemption" and "reconciliation" is to bring one BACK into fellowship that was lost. Generally speaking, mankind LOST it's fellowship in Adam and thus is being brought back into relationship. So, in that regard all mankind was attached to the vine and were cut off due to the sin of the Fall and thus must be grafted back in. But, again, this is a different matter than the one Paul is addressing regarding Israel's being cut off in Romans 9-11.

As it is ludicrous to assert the branch that is cut off from the Vine ever truly abided

In regard to the text in question (Rom 11) when have I asserted that those grafted in to the tree were certainly abiding in Christ and saved? Haven't I consistently argued that being grafted into the vine represented one being able to see, hear, understand and thus respond to the revelation of God means of grace, His gospel?

I understand why you'd rather focus on another totally unrelated verse, though. It is clear the text of Romans 11 doesn't support your theory, so you'd rather put up a red herring and focus attention on a different matter all together.

That is not going to work.

And by the way, the Gospel Church is an entity, not a method or means.

The gospel, and the church that carries it, is the gracious means by which God has chosen to make his appeal to all mankind to be reconciled. No one, not even you, can deny that reality.

The 1st century Jew is either being blinded from that Gospel (hardened/cut off/stumbling) or He has been selected by God to be the "first fruit of the faith" (the remnant) and to carry the message to the rest of the world.