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

[Aaron]

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.

. No, I meant the words you put in my neighbors mouth sound more like the symptoms of heat stroke than logic. It's obvious you've never done much with trees if you can imagine a guy who just pruned a tree saying such a thing. Branches wither immediately. A graft must be kept alive and the joining must take place immediately after the natural branch has been cut and the new graft must be nursed for weeks. The gentiles fell into your trap carrying the symbolism further than intended. "The natural branches were cut so that I could be grafted in." Paul says that isn't the case.

Grafting in again branches that have been rejected is an impossibility. It's a raising back to life. Saying God is able to graft them in again is just like saying God can raise children unto Abraham from stones.

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.

No, no, no. I quoted this to show you that one who does not abide in Christ is called a branch that has been cut off, withered and burned. The writers of Scripture are not constrained in their symbolism by your presumption that to be cut off necessitates having been joined in the first place. Or do you want to slap Christ here?

The tree is the Israel of God, and all Israel shall be saved. The branches that are cut off, unless they're all grafted in again (and we know that hasn't happened since many jews have died in their unbelief) could not have been Israel, otherwise it could not be said that all Israel shall be saved.

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.

Your anthropocentric specs are blinding you. The statement is about God's will and power, not man's. No man ever had the power to believe or choose. The only difference between an unbeliever and a believer is the will of God. Period.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, can you answer this question, please?

There are still natural branches in the tree, aren't there? So, no, God hasn't cast natural Israel utterly away.

 

[Skandelon]

There are still natural branches in the tree, aren't there? So, no, God hasn't cast natural Israel utterly away.

If you read the entire context it is made perfectly clear that he is asking about "the rest who have been hardened" (vs. 7). He is asking "Have they stumbled beyond recovery?"

Plus, what sense does it make to ask if the elect, natural branches, who haven't been hardened or "cut off" have "stumbled?" What does stumbled mean? How do they "stumble" but still remain able to be recovered in your way of thinking?

 

[Skandelon]

. No, I meant the words you put in my neighbors mouth sound more like the symptoms of heat stroke than logic.

So I guess Paul had heat stroke when he wrote: "After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!"

It's obvious you've never done much with trees if you can imagine a guy who just pruned a tree saying such a thing. Branches wither immediately. A graft must be kept alive and the joining must take place immediately after the natural branch has been cut and the new graft must be nursed for weeks.

Are you just joking or is this serious? Are your really suggesting that such details as how long the graft is kept alive is really in view in this analogy?

Considering that in your system the branch was born has a whethered limb on the ground made for the burn pile, I really don't think you have much room to critique the analogy where the so-called non-elect are alive but then CUT OFF the tree because of unbelief. :laugh:

"The natural branches were cut so that I could be grafted in." Paul says that isn't the case.

Really?

Let's read it together: "You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted."

And later...

"Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

He just "granted" that indeed the natural branches were cut so that the Gentiles could be grafted in...more directly because of their unbelief. But again, how can an unbelieving non-elect person ever be attached to YOUR version of the TREE? Not possible.

Grafting in again branches that have been rejected is an impossibility.

WHAT!?

If you can graft in an unnatural branch that has been cut from another tree WHY on earth couldn't you graft a natural branch back into the same tree from which it came? That is the VERY point Paul is clearly making in this text when he says, "And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!"

How can that be any more clear?

So, there are TWO major problems with your view:
1. The branches that were cut off were never really attached to the tree to begin with thus could have never been cut off from it.

2. And despite Paul's argument that those cut off CAN be grafted back in, you don't believe that is possible.

It's a raising back to life. Saying God is able to graft them in again is just like saying God can raise children unto Abraham from stones.

Only if the stone were once children and now are not. Your problem is that you have made the tree represent something it does not. You should take Gill's advice and understand that the tree is not "certain Salvation."

No, no, no. I quoted this to show you that one who does not abide in Christ is called a branch that has been cut off, withered and burned. The writers of Scripture are not constrained in their symbolism by your presumption that to be cut off necessitates having been joined in the first place. Or do you want to slap Christ here?

Again, I don't believe the tree is representative of being saved. I believe it represents being attached to the revelation by which they CAN BE SAVED through faith. One is CUT off from the revelation by growing calloused/hardened to it. How many times do I need to explain this to you before you will represent my view for what it is?

No man ever had the power to believe or choose.

Not even the elect who have been effectually regenerated?

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

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.



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.

God said it, not me.

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.

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,
You have done a fine job setting aside each and every objection. The truth stands firm against all opposition. Many here try to keep re-wording, or changing the statements or train of thought....but to no avail.
I think it is clear to others who read through the thread which explanation is the biblically consistent one. Well done:applause::applause:

 

[Aaron]

Time to wrap this up.

So, there are TWO major problems with your view:
1. The branches that were cut off were never really attached to the tree to begin with thus could have never been cut off from it.

This is the presupposition that I'm trying to tell you is not necessary, and is not entertained by the writers of Scripture. Those cut off from Christ never really abided in Him. He is called the Vine, they are called branches, cut off and ready for the fire.

If your view that the tree cannot be the Israel of God rests on that presupposition that the branches cut off from it had to be part of it in reality, then it rests on a fallacious premise. It is neither gleaned from, nor finds support in the Scriptures. It also ignores Paul's treatment of Israel of the flesh, and Israel of the Spirit, the Jerusalem that is below and the Jerusalem that is above, that those descended from Abraham are not all Abraham's children, that though they reckon themselves of Sarah and Isaac, are truly of Hagar and Ishmael. That they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

2. And despite Paul's argument that those cut off CAN be grafted back in, you don't believe that is possible.

I've only said it is impossible for man, not God. You take an exaltation of God's power and turn it the description of the power of man.

You should take Gill's advice and understand that the tree is not "certain Salvation."

Gill calls the tree the church, as I do.

Again, I don't believe the tree is representative of being saved. I believe it represents being attached to the revelation by which they CAN BE SAVED through faith. One is CUT off from the revelation by growing calloused/hardened to it. How many times do I need to explain this to you before you will represent my view for what it is?

I did represent it for what it is. It's bunk. But it is inconsistent with the picture of an aloof and impersonal god that you have painted. God elects positions, not individuals. Christ bore sin in general, not for any one person. The tree is a job or concept, not an entity. God's power to save is really man's innate ability to respond.

You are wholly consistent, but, as I've shown wholly antibiblical.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron,
You have done a fine job setting aside each and every objection. The truth stands firm against all opposition. Many here try to keep re-wording, or changing the statements or train of thought....but to no avail.
I think it is clear to others who read through the thread which explanation is the biblically consistent one. Well done:applause::applause:

You're very kind to say so.

 

[Skandelon]

Time to wrap this up.This is the presupposition that I'm trying to tell you is not necessary, and is not entertained by the writers of Scripture. Those cut off from Christ never really abided in Him. He is called the Vine, they are called branches, cut off and ready for the fire.

And yet I'm the only one quoting the actual texts in which Paul clearly says they were cut off and can be grafted back in, while you provide nothing but your own conjecture.

If your view that the tree cannot be the Israel of God rests on that presupposition that the branches cut off from it had to be part of it in reality, then it rests on a fallacious premise.

A premise nonetheless supported even by some respected Calvinistic scholars. You do a great injustice to the text to suggest a branch that has been cut off was never really attached while also claiming that the natural branch might be grafted back in is an impossibility when both of those truths are clearly stated.

I suppose Paul should have stated, "Did they stumble beyond recovery? No, they were never walking to begin with, so they couldn't have stumbled. They were dead lifeless and hopeless creatures made for the pits of hell. They may be provoked to envy, but to no avail because they could never be saved. And forget being grafted into the Tree because they were branches that were never attached to anything except Satan and his evil ways. They weren't cut off of anything and they can't be grafted into the Tree because they are of Satan and have no hope of being grafted in or leaving their unbelief."

That is what you presume Paul to believe, is it not? Yet, he says almost the exact opposite. Revealing.

I've only said it is impossible for man, not God. You take an exaltation of God's power and turn it the description of the power of man.

Now, now, now, you know better, Aaron. Remember the "peripheral issue" you keep dismissing? We affirm God's empowering, but such empowerment mustn't be irresistible to still be attributed to Him. I can understand why you would want to dismiss that distinction...it does destroy about 98% of your argument. :thumbs:

Gill calls the tree the church, as I do.

The "gospel church" actually, and here is a quote from Gill who explains his way of dealing with this passage:

And if some of the branches be broken
This is to be understood...not of the destruction of the Jewish nation, city, and temple; for as yet they existed as a nation, their city of Jerusalem was in being, and their temple standing: but of their being left out of the Gospel church, gathered among them, they not believing in the Messiah, but rejected and crucified him; and though afterwards the Gospel was preached to them, they despise it, contradicted, and blasphemed it; so that it pleased God to take it wholly away from them, when they might be truly said to be, "as branches broken off"; which phrase seems to be borrowed from ( Jeremiah 11:16 ) ; they were withered, lifeless, and hopeless, being cast off by God, and neglected by his ministers, the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation: and this was the case of the generality of the people; for though the apostle only says "some", making the best of it in their favour against the Gentiles, and speaking in the softest terms; yet they were only a few, a seed, a remnant, that were taken into the Gospel church, and the rest were blinded, hardened, rejected, and left out for their unbelief... So that this is not to be understood of an ingrafting into Christ unless by a visible profession, but of being received into a Gospel church state; which is signified by the "olive tree" in the next clause...

For if God spared not the natural branches
That is, executed his righteous judgments, inflicted due punishment upon the Jews, unchurched them, and stripped them of those privileges they enjoyed in a church state; who were the natural descendants of Abraham; were naturally, and as born into the world, in a national church state and in that national covenant God made with that people; to whom belonged a national adoption.

Now, clearly Gill is Calvinistic, but notice how he explains that being "cut off" is equal to being cut off to the gospel revelation...which comes through the church. He says, "...the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation." And he clearly shows they aren't grafted into Christ (salvation itself), but into the "gospel church age."

I did represent it for what it is. It's bunk.

"For many, immaturity is an ideal, not a defect."
-Mason Cooley

But it is inconsistent with the picture of an aloof and impersonal god that you have painted. God elects positions, not individuals.

That is both factually untrue and personally offensive. I believe and have consistently taught that God elect INDIVIDUALS to POSITIONS! Individuals who he dearly loves (not because of anything in themselves but because of His own loving nature). In these positions they continue displaying the LOVE of God to all mankind by appealing for all to be reconciled to Him. I have little doubt that most believers, in a unbiased and objective survey, would find your portrayal of God as being much more aloof, impersonal, unloving and overtly unjust than my representation.

You are wholly consistent, but, as I've shown wholly antibiblical.

This from one who refuses to deal with actual quotes from the bible line by line... Revealing.

I noticed you skipped the question I asked yet again. How do they stumble but yet not stumble beyond recovery?

 

[Skandelon]

I think it is clear to others who read through the thread which explanation is the biblically consistent one.

On this point we certainly agree, but for those following along, notice the one who is quoting directly from the text in support for his views versus the one saying the exact opposite.

Paul says: "some of the branches have been broken off."

I believe: "some of the branches have been broken off."

Aaron believes: "the cut off branches were never part of the tree" and "your [false] presumption that to be cut off necessitates having been joined in the first place." (all actual quotes)


HOW ABOUT ANOTHER ONE?



Paul says: "if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

I believe: "if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

Aaron believes: "Grafting in again branches that have been rejected is an impossibility." (actual quote from this thread, please feel free to read it in context because it doesn't change the clear contradiction)


YOU BE THE JUDGE. :wavey:

 

[Aaron]

The "gospel church" actually, and here is a quote from Gill who explains his way of dealing with this passage:

Now, clearly Gill is Calvinistic, but notice how he explains that being "cut off" is equal to being cut off to the gospel revelation...which comes through the church. He says, "...the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation." And he clearly shows they aren't grafted into Christ (salvation itself), but into the "gospel church age."

This is rich. :laugh:It's just too good. :laugh:You quote Gill who has said EXACTLY what I have been saying, and you insist that he is supporting your revisions.

He says the tree is the church. The NT church, and you say he is saying it is the message!:type:

And you're going to lecture me in hermeneutics? :laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

. No, I meant the words you put in my neighbors mouth sound more like the symptoms of heat stroke than logic. It's obvious you've never done much with trees if you can imagine a guy who just pruned a tree saying such a thing. Branches wither immediately. A graft must be kept alive and the joining must take place immediately after the natural branch has been cut and the new graft must be nursed for weeks. The gentiles fell into your trap carrying the symbolism further than intended. "The natural branches were cut so that I could be grafted in." Paul says that isn't the case.

Grafting in again branches that have been rejected is an impossibility. It's a raising back to life. Saying God is able to graft them in again is just like saying God can raise children unto Abraham from stones.

No, no, no. I quoted this to show you that one who does not abide in Christ is called a branch that has been cut off, withered and burned. The writers of Scripture are not constrained in their symbolism by your presumption that to be cut off necessitates having been joined in the first place. Or do you want to slap Christ here?

The tree is the Israel of God, and all Israel shall be saved. The branches that are cut off, unless they're all grafted in again (and we know that hasn't happened since many jews have died in their unbelief) could not have been Israel, otherwise it could not be said that all Israel shall be saved.

Your anthropocentric specs are blinding you. The statement is about God's will and power, not man's. No man ever had the power to believe or choose. The only difference between an unbeliever and a believer is the will of God. Period.

“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

 

[Skandelon]

This is rich. It's just too good. You quote Gill who has said EXACTLY what I have been saying, and you insist that he is supporting your revisions.

He says the tree is the church. The NT church, and you say he is saying it is the message!:type:

And you're going to lecture me in hermeneutics? :laugh:

You are not following along Aaron. He is supporting a Calvinistic rendering, yes, but not the same one you appear to be supporting. He is saying they are being cut off from the revelation of the gospel...the "the means of grace and salvation," whereas you appear to say that they are cut off from Salvation itself. Your approach creates a undue difficulty for your position because it forces you to create the linguistic gymnastics of saying they were never really of the tree that they were cut off of and that they could never really be grafted back into that tree again.

Do you even see how silly it sounds to use the word "again" (which Paul and you both do) when the very word "again" suggests that they were once apart of the tree you have claimed they were never apart of?

By simply understanding that the tree represents the "the means of grace and salvation," rather than the "certainty of salvation," you remove this problem. But that's right, you don't believe the issue of the means being "resistible" versus "irresistible" is relevant to this discourse.

Here is the TRUTH, plain and simple:
God ELECTED Israel to receive his special revelation, in that He sent them the scriptures and the prophets. In that since, every Jew was apart of this TREE. They were all privy to God's plan, desires, and "means of salvation." They were "branches of the tree." Over time many, if not most, of those branches took that revelation for granted, traded the truth in for lies, became prideful, and grew calloused to God's truth despite the clarity of its revelation and His desire and love for them as a people to be saved. As a result, they were hardened in that rebellion and the message was taken to the Gentiles (Acts 28:28). That means the Gentiles were "grafted in to the tree" by which they were given "the means of grace and salvation." And Paul warns them not to do the same thing the Jews did and grow calloused and prideful because they too can have these means of grace removed (i.e. cut off from the tree.)

Being grafted into the tree doesn't guarantee your salvation, it only guarantees you have the means by which to be saved. Likewise, being cut off from the tree doesn't guarantee your condemnation, it only means that some other more harsh means (such as being provoked to envy, being humbled by circumstance like a pigsty, etc) might be needed to provoke your will to change.

 

[Skandelon]

This is rich. :laugh:It's just too good. :laugh:You quote Gill who has said EXACTLY what I have been saying,

Can you show me where you ever said that being cut off from the tree represented, "the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation." Or "[God] inflicted due punishment upon the Jews, unchurched them, and stripped them of those privileges they enjoyed in a church state; who were the natural descendants of Abraham."

Because what I recall is you ridiculing me for suggesting the tree represented the gospel, yet now you claim to be saying "the same thing as Gill" who is clearly showing that being cut off from the tree represents "the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation."

Which is it?

 

[Robert Snow]

Aaron,
You have done a fine job setting aside each and every objection. The truth stands firm against all opposition. Many here try to keep re-wording, or changing the statements or train of thought....but to no avail.
I think it is clear to others who read through the thread which explanation is the biblically consistent one. Well done:applause::applause:

You must be living in an alternative universe if this is what you are seeing. Like you, Aaron does nothing but misinterpret and misapply Scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

You must be living in an alternative universe if this is what you are seeing. Like you, Aaron does nothing but misinterpret and misapply Scripture.

Seems that JUST because they are using cal as means to filter the Bible thru for intrepretation...

Automatically you see them as being in the wrong.period!

 

[Robert Snow]

Seems that JUST because they are using cal as means to filter the Bible thru for intrepretation...

Automatically you see them as being in the wrong.period!

I wish it was this simple. I read most of what Iconoclast and Aaron post. It is so bizarre and strange, I don't know what to say. Also, it's their condescending attitude that makes it even worse.

 

[JesusFan]

I wish it was this simple. I read most of what Iconoclast and Aaron post. It is so bizarre and strange, I don't know what to say. Also, it's their condescending attitude that makes it even worse.

I think that is exactly how God will allow us to all see just how 'confused and how badly" we missed His theology once get to heaven!

 

[Aaron]

“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

Which is what I've been saying. What Paul extols as the power of God Scandal (and perhaps you) takes to be a statement of man's innate ability. To say God is able to graft one in again to Scandal isn't saying God is powerful, it's saying one is salvageable. And the reason he (and perhaps you) says that is because you think man has something to do with his own salvation.

It's a completely idolatrous rendering of the passages.

I say just the opposite. To say God is able to save someone is not a statement about the one being saved. It's a statement of God and God alone.

And so what's the difference between one who is saved and one who isn't? God's will. Not man's.

 

[Skandelon]

Can you show me where you ever said that being cut off from the tree represented, "the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation." Or "[God] inflicted due punishment upon the Jews, unchurched them, and stripped them of those privileges they enjoyed in a church state; who were the natural descendants of Abraham."

Because what I recall is you ridiculing me for suggesting the tree represented the gospel, yet now you claim to be saying "the same thing as Gill" who is clearly showing that being cut off from the tree represents "the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation."

Which is it?

What is revealing is that you took the time to reply to Quantum's post but not this one or anyone that directly addresses your errors.

Just go back through this thread and pick out the arguments and questions that Aaron ignored and it will once again prove what I've often said, "The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored."

The portion MOST ignored and avoided by Aaron as a "peripheral matter" is that concerning the resistibility of God's empowering grace. The reason he must avoid this subject is because it undercuts his straw-man argument against non-Calvinism as being "of man" or "man centered" or "by man's ability." He can't have that. He must attempt to maintain the perception, even if only in his own mind, that our view exalts man and doesn't rely totally upon the grace and goodness of God. This helps him sleep at night after calling us all those derogatory names, questioning our salvation, and accusing of us idolatry.

One day I hope he at least is willing to debate against our actual views rather than the ones he has pinned up on the wall of his mind to throw darts at. :sleeping_2:

 

[JesusFan]

Which is what I've been saying. What Paul extols as the power of God Scandal (and perhaps you) takes to be a statement of man's innate ability. To say God is able to graft one in again to Scandal isn't saying God is powerful, it's saying one is salvageable. And the reason he (and perhaps you) says that is because you think man has something to do with his own salvation.
[/QUOTE

The Gospel is the power of God to save those whom God has elected in Christ to receive Eternal life!

Some err here on the issue of us being spiritually dead as a direct result of the fall of Adam, that we cannot even respond with faith towards jesus unless/until the Lord provides us His grace and means to have our hearts and mind openned so that we may respond by faith!

That is why I hold to all of the saints God chose to be saved getting saved, as He is the One has to provide from start to finish the salvation "process' as wwe all are dead in our sins and unable to do anything in and by ourselves to get saved!




]It's a completely idolatrous rendering of the passages.

I say just the opposite. To say God is able to save someone is not a statement about the one being saved. It's a statement of God and God alone.

And so what's the difference between one who is saved and one who isn't? God's will. Not man's.

its not based upon the will of man, but directly upon the Will of God, as per the Apostle John in his first chapter!