Do you think Pharaoh being hardened is a foreshadowing of Israel?

[Skandelon]

Where do you get this common vs noble use stuff?

From Paul just 10 verses later: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

The "lump" is in reference to Israel (the seed of Abraham), and Paul is making the point that from that SAME LUMP one 'seed' (Jacob) can be chosen for a noble purpose, while another of the same LUMP/SEED can be used for "common use."

Paul is an example of an Israelite being chosen for a noble purpose (apostleship), all the while his 'brethren of the flesh' are being hardened in their rebellion. But are they being cast aside for good? By NO means! Paul anticipates that his ministry to the Gentiles might provoke them to envy so as to save some (Rm. 11:14).

They weren't given different jobs. It's saying that before either were born, before either had done good or evil, while there was nothing to commend one above the other, one person was chosen and the other person was rejected.

Chosen and rejected for what? You ASSUME its salvation, but if that is the case what is Israel being "cut off" from and the Gentiles being "grafted" into?

You're saying Pharoah was hardened because he deserved to be hardened. Paul is saying Pharoah was chosen to be hardened on the same basis that Esau was rejected. Paul relates the passages because the subject is the election of God, not the supposed worthiness of the individual.

Even Calvinistic scholars acknowledge the rebellion of Pharaoh was his own. Pointing out the fact that God blinded him in that already rebellious state is a given and should not be a point of contention between us.

Likewise, Israel's rebellion despite God's "holding out his hands" to them (Rm 10:21) was their own. God's hardening is merely his blinding them from the clear revelation of Christ temporarily so as to accomplish the passover and the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the church.

Once you understand what the Tree represents that Jews are being cut off from and the Gentiles are being grafted into then you will be able to make sense of it all...

 

[Aaron]

From Paul just 10 verses later: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

One, get a better translation. Two, don't assign 21st Century American connotations to 17th Century English words:

Common:

Vine's:
atimia (819), from a, negative, timē, "honor," denotes "dishonor, ignominy, disgrace," in Rom. 1:26, "vile passions" (RV), lit., 'passions of dishonor;" in Rom. 9:21, "dishonor," of vessels designed for meaner household purposes (in contrast to timē, "honor," as in 2 Tim. 2:20)

Thayer's:
dishonor, ignomony, disgrace ...(...in a state of disgrace, used of the unseemliness and offensiveness of a dead body);...for a dishonorable use, of vessels...
​

Just as we have some household vessels made to hold treasure, and others made in which to defecate, God has vessels in which to shed grace, and others in which to pour His indignation and righteous judgment.

That is what is being said.

Chosen and rejected for what? You ASSUME its salvation,

No assumption. It's pretty much spelled out.

, but if that is the case what is Israel being "cut off" from and the Gentiles being "grafted" into?

The Israel of God.

Even Calvinistic scholars acknowledge the rebellion of Pharaoh was his own. Pointing out the fact that God blinded him in that already rebellious state is a given and should not be a point of contention between us.

Moses is clear that Pharoah would have let the Israel go, were it not for God's hardening. Paul is clear that Pharoah was created to be a repository for His indignation and righteous judgment.

Once you understand what the Tree represents that Jews are being cut off from and the Gentiles are being grafted into then you will be able to make sense of it all...

You think the tree is a mission. The tree is an entity.

 

[Skandelon]

One, get a better translation.

You say that as if I might have a problem with "your" translations. Your definitions don't change a thing. God has chosen to honor some of Israel, like Paul, and dishonor others, but that doesn't mean those chosen for "dishonor" cannot be saved. Paul spells that out VERY CLEARLY. He even asks the question, "Have they stumbled beyond recovery?" and "Being natural branches, can they be grafted back in after being cut off?" The answer to the first question is an EMPHATIC "NO" and the answer to the second is an EMPHATIC "YES."

That destroys your presumption that those individuals who are "cut off" or "hardened" are the non-elect reprobates destined for destruction.

Just as we have some household vessels made to hold treasure, and others made in which to defecate, God has vessels in which to shed grace, and others in which to pour His indignation and righteous judgment.

Well, now we know you support the double predestination view....no surprise.

The Israel of God.

Which is "the elect?" If so, how is it that some individual could be "cut off" from being elect and others grafted back into being elect? If not, please expound?

Moses is clear that Pharoah would have let the Israel go, were it not for God's hardening.

Yep. And many of the Jews would have believed in Christ and refused to crucify Jesus if not for God's hardening. They also wouldn't have allowed for the Gentiles to come into the church because of their bigotry against them, which is why God temporarily hardens them till the Gentiles are grafted in. Glad you are finally understanding.

Paul is clear that Pharoah was created to be a repository for His indignation and righteous judgment.

Actually, I think scripture says he was "raised up" for the purpose of making God's glory known, right?

You think the tree is a mission. The tree is an entity.

I don't remember ever calling the tree a mission. And what entity is God's Israel exactly? The elect? (See question above)

 

[Aaron]

The "lump" is in reference to Israel (the seed of Abraham), and Paul is making the point that from that SAME LUMP one 'seed' (Jacob) can be chosen for a noble purpose, while another of the same LUMP/SEED can be used for "common use."

Oops. Forgot to answer this one!

The lump means there is no difference between the substance of the vessels. One is not gold and the other clay. There is nothing inherently more valuable in Jacob than in Esau, or in you than in Charles Manson.

So why do some remain in their profanity and others are converted?

God's will in election. That's it.

 

[Skandelon]

Oops. Forgot to answer this one!

The lump means there is no difference between the substance of the vessels.

I agree, but the point of Paul's diatribe is clearly to show why all Israel is not Israel. Israel is the LUMP of clay and God can choose to form an apostle out of that lump (noble/honorable use) and hardened another (common/dishonorable use) out of that same LUMP. Yet, even so, the lump being hardened may still be saved, as Paul clearly lays out in Romans 11:14ff...

 

[Aaron]

You say that as if I might have a problem with "your" translations. Your definitions don't change a thing.

Not to John Donne, but to Dr. Suess the difference is absolute, and it's that difference that you bank on for the maintenance of your view. To Dr. Seuss a common purpose could be sweeping the church floor, but it is not a dishonor.

One who is dishonored is one under judgment. There is no escaping that fact.

God has chosen to honor some of Israel, like Paul, and dishonor others, but that doesn't mean those chosen for "dishonor" cannot be saved.

Paul says some are made for dishonor, and others are not. Not merely chosen, but made. You're saying no one was made for dishonor, because you must have some way of saying that men are free to choose their destinies.

Paul spells that out VERY CLEARLY. He even asks the question, "Have they stumbled beyond recovery?" and "Being natural branches, can they be grafted back in after being cut off?" The answer to the first question is an EMPHATIC "NO" and the answer to the second is an EMPHATIC "YES."

Question beg much?

You still don't get it. God is able to graft them in, yes, but will He? The point is that the wild branches have nothing that the natural branches don't have, just as there is nothing in the clay of the vessel made unto honor that is not in the clay of the vessel made unto dishonor.

So what makes some clay into a vessel of honor and some into vessels of dishonor?

God's will. That's it.

Well, now we know you support the double predestination view....no surprise.

God said it, not me.

Which is "the elect?" If so, how is it that some individual could be "cut off" from being elect and others grafted back into being elect? If not, please expound?

We've been over this before. There are children of Abraham by the flesh, and those who are the children of Promise. Though according to the flesh, they are all of Israel, according to the Spirit they never were.

You want everything about God to be impersonal. Christ didn't bear individuals on the Cross, He bore the curse. God doesn't elect individuals, He elects jobs. God doesn't save an individual, He saves a class of people, those who were good enough to respond properly to His general call and choose to believe.

But what we have presented in Rom. 9 is intensely personal. He didn't choose Esau to have a dirty job. He hated Esau personally. He didn't choose Jacob to have a good job. He loved Jacob personally. Why? Not because of themselves, but because of Himself.

That's it. That's what's being said. It's not hard to see or understand, you just can't believe it. You're the one saying "Why doth He yet find fault?" so you make up this image of God that conforms to your carnal sense of justice and the rest is academic.

I don't remember ever calling the tree a mission. And what entity is God's Israel exactly? The elect? (See question above)

Yes, you say the tree is the Gospel (again, impersonal) and the branches are to carry it to the world, and because they didn't blah, blah, blah

 

[Aaron]

I agree, but the point of Paul's diatribe is clearly to show why all Israel is not Israel. Israel is the LUMP of clay and God can choose to form an apostle out of that lump (noble/honorable use) and hardened another (common/dishonorable use) out of that same LUMP. Yet, even so, the lump being hardened may still be saved, as Paul clearly lays out in Romans 11:14ff...

You're forgetting Pharoah. If we're going to personify the lump, then it's Adam. So again, the elect have nothing of which to boast against the non-elect. The point is that all men stand or fall at God's will. Not their own.

 

[Skandelon]

One who is dishonored is one under judgment. There is no escaping that fact.

Uhhh, well yeah...if they are not yet believing they would, in that sense, still be under judgement. But the point is whether they will certainly be condemned to hell (as the non-elect of your system would be). According to Paul, those being hardened/cut off can be saved/grafted back in as shown numerous times in Romans 11, thus they cannot be the "non-elect" of Calvinism.

Paul says some are made for dishonor, and others are not. Not merely chosen, but made. You're saying no one was made for dishonor, because you must have some way of saying that men are free to choose their destinies.

You make two presumptions on this text:

1. You presume that dishonor equals being condemned to hell without hope of salvation, when it could simply mean they were not chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship as was Paul, but instead were hardened dishonorably but could be grafted back in "if they leave their unbelief...as they are 'natural branches.'" (again, read Romans 11)

2. You presume that God's choice to use them for "common/dishonorable use" means He is also responsible for making them rebellious to begin with, when CLEARLY Paul indicates that God was "long-suffering" toward them and "holding out his hands to them all day." (Rm 10:21) And "not desiring any to perish." etc etc...

Question beg much?

??? I just quoted Paul in Romans 11...

You still don't get it. God is able to graft them in, yes, but will He?

Does He? Didn't you argue it would be against His nature to save those who He has not elected to save? So, why even point to the possibility of grafting the non elect in again? That makes no sense.

So what makes some clay into a vessel of honor and some into vessels of dishonor?

You mean, why did God chose to make Paul an apostle and not one of the many other Pharisees of that day? Because God can form from the same LUMP of Israel some for noble purposes and some for common use, that is why. This has NOTHING to do with God choosing to make some believe and be saved to the neglect of all others. This has to do with God making a nation out of people who are not a nation and using some from "his elect nation of Israel" to bring them the appeal to be reconciled while leaving the rest hardened.

You want everything about God to be impersonal.

Such statements only go to show that you have yet to grasp that which you have rejected.

But what we have presented in Rom. 9 is intensely personal. He didn't choose Esau to have a dirty job. He hated Esau personally.

And I suppose you hate your mother and father since that was Christ's command, right? How do you honor them and hate them? Could it be that Christ was speaking of choosing one over the other just as God chose one brother for the noble purpose of bringing redemption to the world and not the other?

He didn't choose Jacob to have a good job. He loved Jacob personally. Why? Not because of themselves, but because of Himself.

I agree, that God's choice to use Jacob for this noble purpose wasn't conditional, just as God's choice to use Paul wasn't conditioned on Paul's goodness. You just make the mistake of confusing God choice of messengers, prophets, and father's of the redemptive lineage with his choice to provide salvation to all man.

That's it. That's what's being said. It's not hard to see or understand, you just can't believe it.

I can and did believe it. I just don't anymore because I studied the WHOLE of scripture and now understand such passages in light of their historical context. You falsely believe that God, who calls his people to love their enemies, hates His. I believe God doesn't act hypocritically. He genuinely appeals for his enemies to be reconciled to Him, because he genuinely love his enemies, just as revealed through Christ.

Yes, you say the tree is the Gospel (again, impersonal) and the branches are to carry it to the world, and because they didn't blah, blah, blah

I noticed you didn't answer the question as to how God "cut off" individuals from the so-called "entity?" You seemed to argue that He could, but wouldn't, graft the cut off Jews back in, but you never explained how they were "cut off" to begin with? How is one cut off that? That presumes they were once attached, right?

 

[Skandelon]

You're forgetting Pharoah.

Quite the contrary. Pharaoh is the foreshadow or type in history of Israel.

He was rebellious and didn't want to let the Jews go, God sealed him in that rebellion keeping him blinded from the clear revelation of God through the plagues. Why? To accomplish the Passover.

So too, Israel was rebellious against God and He sealed them (hardened) in that rebellion, keeping them blinded from the clear revelation of Christ. Why? To accomplish the Passover.

 

[Aaron]

Uhhh, well yeah...if they are not yet believing they would, in that sense, still be under judgement. But the point is whether they will certainly be condemned to hell (as the non-elect of your system would be). According to Paul, those being hardened/cut off can be saved/grafted back in as shown numerous times in Romans 11, thus they cannot be the "non-elect" of Calvinism.

Paul only says that God is able to graft them back in, not that He will. The only difference between the elect and non-elect is God's will, not God's ability, nor the nature of the elect.

So, why even point to the possibility of grafting the non elect in again? That makes no sense.

He doesn't point to the possiblity, he points to God's ability. That's the point, and it humbles the elect to know that the non-elect were not cut off to make room for them, nor that they possess some quality that sets them apart from the non-elect for which God would love them more.

God's will, not man's will—God's ability, not man's ability is the focus here.

You make two presumptions on this text:

1. You presume that dishonor equals being condemned to hell without hope of salvation, when it could simply mean they were not chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship as was Paul, but instead were hardened dishonorably but could be grafted back in "if they leave their unbelief...as they are 'natural branches.'" (again, read Romans 11)

2. You presume that God's choice to use them for "common/dishonorable use" means He is also responsible for making them rebellious to begin with, when CLEARLY Paul indicates that God was "long-suffering" toward them and "holding out his hands to them all day." (Rm 10:21) And "not desiring any to perish." etc etc...

I make no presumptions. Esau was never saved. Neither was Pharoah. The text says that Esau and Pharoah were created as vessels in which God would pour His wrath, and Jacob was a vessel into which He would shed His grace. Jacob was no more compliant than Esau, no less rebellious. The only difference between them was God's will.

 

[Skandelon]

Paul only says that God is able to graft them back in, not that He will. The only difference between the elect and non-elect is God's will, not God's ability, nor the nature of the elect.

I predict you won't actually answer these questions, but here it goes anyway:

1. Explain why Paul would speak of God's ability to do something He would never actually do? What is his point? Is he just bragging on God's abilities or something?

2. Why does it speak of the man's ability to "leave their unbelief." Paul wrote, "if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." So, while it does speak of God's ability to graft them in (something you claim he would never actually do making this point moot), it also speaks of the man's ability to "not persist in unbelief." Is that just another impossible possibility that Paul brings up just to confuse the audience?

3. What about the possibility of the hardened Jew to be provoked by envy and be saved as referenced in Romans 11:14? Is that too just a meaningless statement of what is "possible" but would never really happen?

4. Doesn't being "cut off" from something presume one was once attached? Explain how one can be attached to the entity of "God's Israel" and then be cut off from that?

That's the point, and it humbles the elect to know that the non-elect were not cut off to make room for them,

You believe that knowledge can humble someone? Interestingly contradictory.

I make no presumptions. Esau was never saved.

How do you know that for sure? Even Luther taught, "It is also likely that in the end Esau was saved."

Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

We can't know if he was saved or not, that is something YOU presume upon the text that is not there. As Archangel said in an earlier discussion: "I don't know Esau's eternal fate, and neither does anyone else. Esau was rejected by God in that the promise did not flow through him, but his brother Jacob. So, I think, to say that Esau was reprobate would be to take Paul out of the scope of his intended meaning in that passage."

 

[Aaron]

I predict you won't actually answer these questions

At first, I was going to say you're right, because it wearies me to answer the same questions over and over. Then I thought of PM's I'd gotten encouraging me to keep on because some actually find my answers to your arrogant cavils edifying. So, onward:

1. Explain why Paul would speak of God's ability to do something He would never actually do? What is his point? Is he just bragging on God's abilities or something?

It's no sin to glory in the Lord, but I already told you. He tells us so that we wouldn't think that the non-elect are rejected because they were in a worse condition than we, or that we were elected because we are or did better. But you insist that those who don't get saved are worse than you. They made the wrong choice because of a deficiency of some quality that you have yet to identify.

Paul says it because of you.

2. Why does it speak of the man's ability to "leave their unbelief." Paul wrote, "if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." So, while it does speak of God's ability to graft them in (something you claim he would never actually do making this point moot), it also speaks of the man's ability to "not persist in unbelief."

No he doesn't. You're reading that into it. Christ speaks of those who endure to the end being saved. Do they endure by their own ability, or is it Christ that sustains them? I'm assuming you don't go to the logical extreme of your position and claim that the saints perservere on their own, and have the freedom to leave the flock once they're in.

Perseverance is a sign of election, not the cause of it. Same with faith, humility, godly sorrow, meekness, mercy, persecution, etc. You're looking at the signs of a thing and calling them the cause.

One is not saved because he perseveres. He perseveres because he is saved. One is not saved because he believes. He believes because he is saved.

Is that just another impossible possibility that Paul brings up just to confuse the audience?

First, it's not possible that a man by his own power can cease his unbelief. It is all God. Not one whit man.

3. What about the possibility of the hardened Jew to be provoked by envy and be saved as referenced in Romans 11:14? Is that too just a meaningless statement of what is "possible" but would never really happen?

Your judicial hardening theory is bunk. The question, itself based on a fallacious premise, is invalid.

4. Doesn't being "cut off" from something presume one was once attached? Explain how one can be attached to the entity of "God's Israel" and then be cut off from that?

I already did. In the same way that one can be said to be not Israel who is of Israel.

You believe that knowledge can humble someone? Interestingly contradictory.

A true knowledge of one's self is very humbling. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

How do you know that for sure? Even Luther taught, "It is also likely that in the end Esau was saved."

Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

We can't know if he was saved or not, that is something YOU presume upon the text that is not there. As Archangel said in an earlier discussion: "I don't know Esau's eternal fate, and neither does anyone else. Esau was rejected by God in that the promise did not flow through him, but his brother Jacob. So, I think, to say that Esau was reprobate would be to take Paul out of the scope of his intended meaning in that passage."

What do you mean "even Luther"? Luther was a great man and theologian, but he still baptized babies. He even argued against the inspiration of the book of James. (He probably got tired of having to explain it over and over to those dull of hearing.) The point? Though he is head and shoulders over any theologian today, he isn't right all the time.

The witness of the Spirit is that God hated Esau. No where is it said that God changed toward him. In Hebrews, he is said to be profane, i.e. dishonored, and we are warned against those like him. I'm certain, because God has revealed His will concerning Esau. You're uncertain, because you think Esau's will is the efficacious factor.

 

[Skandelon]

At first, I was going to say you're right, because it wearies me to answer the same questions over and over. Then I thought of PM's I'd gotten encouraging me to keep on because some actually find my answers to your arrogant cavils edifying. So, onward:

What a martyr you are! :laugh:

It's no sin to glory in the Lord, but I already told you. He tells us so that we wouldn't think that the non-elect are rejected because they were in a worse condition than we, or that we were elected because we are or did better. But you insist that those who don't get saved are worse than you.

Ok, so you are saying that Paul makes the argument that the hardened Jews 'haven't stumbled beyond recovery' but 'may be provoked to envy and saved' 'if they don't persist in unbelief'....they, being 'natural branches,' may 'be grafted back' into the tree...and the reason for this argument is to show that God is able to save them, but won't so as to show those who are saved that it has nothing to do with them? Really? That is your answer?

They made the wrong choice because of a deficiency of some quality that you have yet to identify.

Asked and answered....and then ignored by you.

Christ speaks of those who endure to the end being saved. Do they endure by their own ability, or is it Christ that sustains them? I'm assuming you don't go to the logical extreme of your position and claim that the saints perservere on their own, and have the freedom to leave the flock once they're in.

Actually, because I don't believe the tree represents salvation, this is not a problem for my view. I believe the tree represents the appeal of entering covenant with God (the "Gospel Church" as Gill puts it). Israel was the natural branches of that tree, in that they received the special revelation from God by which they might respond and be saved. Now that appeal is made to the whole world, not just Israel. Being cut off from that tree therefore is not representative of an individual being saved and then lost, it is representative of an individual being shown mercy and then becoming hardened and then blinded to the revelation of God. No one in my view is losing their salvation, because to be cut off from the revelation is not equal to being cut off from being "elect."

You're looking at the signs of a thing and calling them the cause.

I just let scripture speak for itself. It says "Believe and you will be saved," not 'He believes because he is saved.' In fact, even scholarly Calvinists would take issue with that view because even they affirm that salvation is conditioned upon faith. Maybe you meant 'regeneration' and not 'salvation?'

Your judicial hardening theory is bunk.

We will let God be the judge of that. Personally, I think the theory that Paul is presenting impossible scenarios of hardened Jews being provoked to salvation, leaving their unbelief and being grafted back into the tree just to show that God could do it but won't in order to show the elect that it really has nothing to do with their belief or unbelief, provoking to envy or anything thing about us, is about as ridiculous of a explanation as I've ever heard...but to each his own.

The question, itself based on a fallacious premise, is invalid.

Care to explain what the fallacious premise is, or is this your way of ignoring a question that undermines your premise?

I already did. In the same way that one can be said to be not Israel who is of Israel.

So, those cut off of the tree just APPEARED to be apart of the tree but really never were? So, Paul discourse regarding them being 'natural branches' is a lie because if they were never "of the tree" then in reality they could never have been 'natural,' right?

What do you mean "even Luther"? Luther was a great man and theologian, but he still baptized babies.

I wasn't making the point that he was infallible, I was merely pointing to respected scholar who acknowledge my view that we cannot possibly know Esau's eternal condition.

The witness of the Spirit is that God hated Esau.

Yes, and its a command of the Spirit that you are to hate your parents, but understanding the greater context and intent of the author is necessary, is it not?

 

[Skandelon]

The witness of the Spirit is that God hated Esau.

On this point I also wanted to add:

Too often here on the BB I hear Calvinistic believers argue against the view that God indeed does love all people and desires for all to be saved.

This is not the view of scripture or even many classical "Calvinistic" scholars. Consider the quotes from scripture and the Calvinistic scholars below (links included and emphasis added):

1 Tim 2:4
3 This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself--a ransom for all, a testimony at the proper time.

Matt. 23:37
"O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

Ez. 18:32
"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."

2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

Rom. 10:21
21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Quote from Calvinist John Piper:
"...as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people...."



Quote from Calvinist John MacArthur:
"I am troubled by the tendency of some - often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine - who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency."



Quote from John Calvin:
John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

 

[Aaron]

Ok, so you are saying that Paul makes the argument that the hardened Jews 'haven't stumbled beyond recovery' but 'may be provoked to envy and saved' 'if they don't persist in unbelief'....they, being 'natural branches,' may 'be grafted back' into the tree...and the reason for this argument is to show that God is able to save them, but won't so as to show those who are saved that it has nothing to do with them? Really? That is your answer?

Let's take another speaker, John the Baptist, who employs the same rhetorical device as Paul to the same purpose:

Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
​

To apply your reasoning, you're forced to presume that some rocks are elect. After all, why "brag" about God's ability to raise some up as sons of Abraham if He has no intention of doing so, unless he just wanted to confuse his audience?

My answer is that John's point isn't that God is going to call any rocks to repentance. His point is that the Pharisee's have nothing brag about, and that they are where they are, and the stones are where they are because of God's will, not by an inherent quality. In other words, the stones have as much hope in themselves of salvation as the Pharisees, and the Pharisees boast?

My answer is, your presuppositions are non-sequiturs. They're illogical. Not only are they unsupported by the writers of Scripture, the writers of Scripture counter them. Now, let's just stick to the point of the passage, and quit reading into it things that aren't there.

So what's the point of the passage? The only difference between the elect and non-elect is God's will. That's it. Not some deficiency, not some quality, not some choice on their part. God and God alone. Esau's mention with Pharoah as a fellow vessel unto dishonor pulls the rug out from under your judicial hardening theories.

So, those cut off of the tree just APPEARED to be apart of the tree but really never were? So, Paul discourse regarding them being 'natural branches' is a lie because if they were never "of the tree" then in reality they could never have been 'natural,' right?

Again, presuppositon submitted as necessity.

Two Israel's are defined by Paul. One is spiritual Israel, the other is natural Israel. According to the flesh, unbelieving Jews are children of Abraham through Sarah, but according to the spirit, they are children of Abraham through Hagar. They are not free, but slaves. So what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

The tree represents spiritual Israel. Some of the natural branches, those who are children of Abraham by the flesh, are part of that tree. They believe and are blessed with Abraham, the father of the faithful. Some Gentiles are part that tree. Just as the cut off branches were never part of the tree, the wild branches grafted in were never absent. In Paul's picture, we never see the branches that were cut off abiding in the tree, neither do we see the wild branches absent. We are presented with a tree made up of some natural branches and some wild branches. Don't assume that Paul meant for anyone to take it further than that. You find it confusing because your are encumbered by an irrational need to go beyond the prima facia symbolism. Don't assume that the First Century audience felt that same need. If you must take the symbolism further, I've never known a husbandman to prune a tree for the sake of saving the branches he cut off. The branches he cut off are destined for the fire.

Yes, and its a command of the Spirit that you are to hate your parents, but understanding the greater context and intent of the author is necessary, is it not?

If you must quibble, whether one has affectionate feeling or not is not the issue. When it comes to Christ, one must reject and abandon his natural ties. It doesn't matter how you slice it, Esau was personally rejected. Not just given a different job than Jacob, he was rejected, and for no reason other than the will God. Sounds like hate to me.

 

[Skandelon]

Let's take another speaker, John the Baptist, who employs the same rhetorical device as Paul to the same purpose:

Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
​

To apply your reasoning, you're forced to presume that some rocks are elect. After all, why "brag" about God's ability to raise some up as sons of Abraham if He has no intention of doing so, unless he just wanted to confuse his audience?

You honestly can't see the difference in:

(1) Paul's 3 chapter long explanation of the cutting off/hardening of the Jews, the reserving of the chosen remnant of Israel and the ingrafting of the Gentiles through the message of the apostles.

AND...

(2) John's single line of hyperbole? {A hyperbole, by the way, which makes little since if Irresistible Grace is true. If Calvinism is true he shouldn't need to threaten to irresistibly call stones to be children. If anything he should compare the people to stones who must be irresistibly made to be children...but that's another debate.}

My answer is that John's point isn't that God is going to call any rocks to repentance. His point is that the Pharisee's have nothing brag about, and that they are where they are, and the stones are where they are because of God's will, not by an inherent quality.

Actually, his point is that if people don't respond God's back up plan looks a lot like Calvinism. :smilewinkgrin:

So what's the point of the passage? The only difference between the elect and non-elect is God's will. That's it. Not some deficiency, not some quality, not some choice on their part. God and God alone.

But even Calvinists affirm the conditional salvation by which men must believe to be saved, so regardless there is a quality or "deficiency" either way you look at it. The difference is whether that quality or deficiency is irresistibly applied by God or not...you know that peripheral issue you continual ignore?

Esau's mention with Pharoah as a fellow vessel unto dishonor pulls the rug out from under your judicial hardening theories.

Only if you presume that Paul means for God's choice to judicial harden someone (a dishonorable thing) is equal with God's choice not to elect them unto salvation...meaning of course that they are destined to 'stumble beyond recovery,' never be 'provoked to envy and saved,' or 'leave their unbelief so as to be grafted back in,' all of which Paul anticipates as real possibilities for the hardened Jews.

The tree represents spiritual Israel.

So, no one has ever really been cut off of that tree, right? Paul is just speaking metaphorically by referring to "natural Israel" being cut off of a tree they really were never attached to? Is that what you are saying?

Some of the natural branches, those who are children of Abraham by the flesh, are part of that tree.

So were the ones cut off that tree, otherwise there wouldn't be a need to CUTT THEM OFF. And there certainly wouldn't be a need to speak of grafting them back in again if they leave their unbelief.

Just as the cut off branches were never part of the tree

Do you ever go back and read what you write and listen to how difficult it is to believe?

Imagine you go to your neighbors house and under his freshly pruned tree is a pile of branches. He says, I just cut off these branches and grafted in a few others, but I may graft a few of the natural back on.

If you looked at him and said, "So, you are saying those 'cut off branches were never part of the tree' and couldn't really ever be grafted back on?" I think he might slap you. :laugh:

I've never known a husbandman to prune a tree for the sake of saving the branches he cut off. The branches he cut off are destined for the fire.

So, what did Paul mean when he wrote of the "rest who were hardened:"

"Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."

 

[Winman]

Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

John the Baptist is not speaking of creating believers from rocks here, he is speaking of the resurrection. He said he is able to "raise up" children of Abraham from these stones. Believers return to the dust as all people do when they die, but believers will be "raised up" from the dust at the resurrection.

 

[Aaron]

He says, I just cut off these branches and grafted in a few others, but I may graft a few of the natural back on.

You think that's more logical?

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Is Christ saying here that the one cast forth as a branch abode in Christ at one time, but does no longer, or is it that the man never did abide in him? Why compare him to a branch at all?

 

[Skandelon]

You think that's more logical?

Yes, when you understand that the tree represents the means of salvation and not salvation itself, it makes perfect logical sense. A branch may be cut off (grow hardened and then become blinded to the truth) due to unbelief, but be grafted back in and saved if they don't persist in that unbelief. That makes perfect logical sense. The only reason it wouldn't is if your apply your presumptions.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Is Christ saying here that the one cast forth as a branch abode in Christ at one time, but does no longer, or is it that the man never did abide in him? Why compare him to a branch at all?

You've never known any one who has "not abided" in Christ for a long period of time only to come to know Christ later in life and come to abide in him? To presume on this text that a person who is not abiding in Christ can never come to abide is clearly not the intent.

The point Paul is making is that "they have not stumbled beyond recovery," yet your presumption undermines that clear intent by suggesting that not only have they stumbled beyond recovery but they were born unable to do otherwise and have never had or ever will have hope of being saved or leaving unbelief. That CLEARLY is the opposite of what this passage teaches.

 

[Skandelon]

So, what did Paul mean when he wrote of the "rest who were hardened:"

"Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."

Aaron, can you answer this question, please?