Skan
We've been through this hardening thing enough, for many of the points you raise here have already been answered.
However, let me deal with your take on Paul's statement.
You say Paul would have spoken precisely and clearly if he believed as I believe. That is unwarranted - throughout scripture God gives us wording that is open to dispute if taken on its own. Only by comparing Scripture with Scripture can we get to the exact meaning with certainty. Even then good Christians are often puzzled or divided among themselves.
Paul's reference to Israel in Romans 11 is not simple - it must be understood in context. for example, he says in v.7, What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Are the elect not Israelites? Of course they are. Paul means Israel as a whole, the nation, has not obtained salvation. Only a part of it has.
When he says 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! is he referring to the hardened Jews or to Israel as a nation? To Israel as a nation. That is why some of them can be provoked to jealousy and be saved; that is why there will be a fulness.
Notice verse 14 says that they "MIGHT" be saved. You believe that this is in reference to the elect so why would Paul use "might" here? If he believed as you do would he speak about the means of jealousy being used to provoke the elect as a certainity not as a probability? You need to explain that!
No, I do not believe Paul refers to the elect when he says those who are my flesh . He speaks of the nation. The ones to be saved are the elect. The salvation of any Jew is a 'might' for the preacher, even Paul, but the salvation of the elect is a certainty, known to God.
The objection you raise here when you write, "If God hardened the Jews until they rejected and crucified the Lord, are they guilty of this, seeing He allowed them to do nothing else?" is the very objection Paul is addressing in Romans 9. He answers this objection!!!! He does not answer the objection that Arminians raise against Calvinism which would be worded slightly different: "If God hardened all men from birth, are they guilty of this, seeing He allowed them to do nothing else?"
Do you see the difference Ian? In the first objection we are dealing with God temporarily and purposefully hardening a group of people who have already by their own "free will" rejected God's message time and time again in the face of God's patient longsuffering. In the second objection we are dealing with God choosing to harden men from birth because of Adam's sin allowing them to do nothing else but reject God's solution to their plight. There is a HUGE difference and it is in that difference that we have our dispute. Calvinists seem to be blind to that difference because they apply Paul's explainations of how God is just in temporarily hardening the Jews to support their doctrine that God had all men hardened through the fall to the point that no one is able to respond even to the powerful Holy Spirit wrought solution unless they were unconditional chosen and effectually called.
If it were the case that this refers only to the Jews of Christ's day, the principle is still established - God has prevented men from doing anything other than sin. To say He has then extended them the opportunity to repent does not alter the moral case, the one that you use against Calvinists.
However, your assertion that it is only these Jews that are in view is false. Paul further defines who the parties are by use of his 'vessels' analogy. Romans 9: 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? One lot is made for destruction - reprobate; the other is made for glory - the elect. No matter how you turn this piece, it will not fit into your Arminian jig-saw. The vessels of wrath are not temporarily hardened Jews who may later repent; nor are the vessels of mercy non-hardened Jews who may later apostasise. Their eternal state was fixed before they were born. The vessels of wrath are the non-elect of all times and races; the vessels of mercy are the elect of all times and races.
While I believe it is true that the 12 were unconditional chosen and effectually called from the already hardened Jewish nation to apostleship I do not believe all men are saved as such. To believe this would undermine the uniquness of apostolic authority which set these men apart as our authorities. Proof that God uniquely and sovereignly chooses and calls out his messengers in no way proves that he does the same with those who respond to their message. In fact, I would say it proves the opposite for why would one consider Paul an authority if he were called by the same means the rest of the believers were called?
Again, you establish the principle against which you object when you deal with Calvinism. But maybe I mistake your position. I recall you did say something about God being free to unconditionally elect if He so desired. It's just that I can't square that with your objection to us saying that is the case for everyman.
Your objection that it would undermine Paul's apostolic authority seems pointless to me. Paul's authority does not derive from him being unconditionally elected; rather from Christ revealing Himself to him and commissioning him as an infallible witness to Himself.
In Him
Ian
