Romans 11

[agedman]

I did not see an answer to the question of why did God harden the unbelieving Jews, if they had no ability to become believers?

Then you refute the Gospel accounts of God blinding, hiding, hardening the Jews, lest they be converted and the purposes of the crucifixion be thwarted?

We agree, not all Jews were hardened, so not at issue.

So you agree that at least some WERE hardened?

How does that work with your question above? Are you stating that those hardened had no spiritual ability, for if you do you are in direct conflict with your own scheme.

This refers to the "fulness" of the Gentiles according to your understanding of the meaning of "fulness" i.e. all the elect Gentiles, from Paul's time to the end of the age.

Aren't you the one who claims folks innate spiritual ability? Why then are you concerned about such words as "the elect" and how long (end of the age)?

No, you are not presenting any consistency here, either.

No verse or passage say if a person does not initially accept the gospel, they are hardened such that they can never accept the gospel. When you make assertions like "the gospel and Word of God either brings mercy or brings hardening" please provide the scripture that makes that assertion.

Why does he need to do that? You claim innate spiritual ability is found in all humankind in violation of Scriptures such as John 14:6, by presenting that humans may at will crank up their own spiritual ability that it gets God's attention...

Likewise, please provide the scripture that refers to "judicial hardening" and defines it as not actual hardening but simply means the person is not compelled to believe. That concept seems absurd.

People without understanding usually consider that which they cannot comprehend either in terms of amazement or in terms of absurd.

Which selection is determined upon the landscape in which one abides.

 

[Van]

Yet another post containing falsehood after falsehood.

Note the non-answer to the question of why hardened those already supposedly hardened, but instead a change of subject. Obfuscation on display.
Note the nonsensical charge of inconsistency. Anything to change the subject.
Did I claim soil #1 had "innate spiritual ability? Nope, so yet another blatant falsehood.
Finally the fiction of judicial hardening is defended with an ad hominem.

 

[agedman]

I don't take a back seat to any Bible Teacher, aside from Jesus, living or dead.

So your position is correct and everyone else's is wrong. Because NOBODY believes the fulness of the Gentiles was accomplished in two thousand years ago. No one that I know of at least.

What he is saying that unless the Lord Jesus Christ said it, then not even the Apostles can be read as truthful.

It reminds me of some folks in the initial stages of the "Jesus Movement." They would study very diligently the statements of Christ, but pass over the rest of Scriptures, even to the point of dismissing sinful behaviors.

Some in this group did not consider the "whole counsel of God" extended to any other than Christ.

We still have some that do that same teaching and thinking. Surprisingly they are also the ones that sponsor the "National Prayer Breakfast" meetings. (Secretive Christian group at heart of D.C. politics ready for its close-up in Netflix docuseries)

 

[Van]

Romans11:1-10 analysis and commentary by Van.

1: His people refers to those chosen under the promise of the Old Covenant, believing Jews. Not all of the blood line descendants of Abraham.

2: His people (believing Jews) whom He foreknew (as part of the Old Covenant promise). Thus they were part of His previously formulated redemption plan under the Old Covenant Promise, not the Law.

3: Some of Abraham's descendants rejected God and killed His prophets. These were not part of "His people."

4: But from among the blood line descendants, God chose 7000 based on the condition of their faith in Him, for they had not bowed the knee to Baal.

5: At the time of Paul's writing of Romans, there had come to a a remnant, in the same way, or in other words according to God's choice of believing Jews.

6. An election based on faith is a gracious choice, and is not an election based on works.

7. Those seeking the promise by works were hardened, but those seeking the promise by faith were chosen. Note the timing of the choice, at the present time, rather than before creation.

8: The temporary hardening is as described in the OT.

9: The temporary hardening is as described elsewhere in the OT.

10: Note the duration of the hardening appears to last the lifetime of the individuals hardened at that time, rather than the hardening of all Jews for an unspecified period of time. Thus the hardening ended many many years ago, thus the hardening (diminishment) ended and the restoration (fullness) has occurred.

As you can see, this is a radically different take on the passage. Study the passage and two very different views and see what fits with the actual scripture.

 

[agedman]

Yet another post containing falsehood after falsehood.

Note the non-answer to the question of why hardened those already supposedly hardened, but instead a change of subject. Obfuscation on display.
Note the nonsensical charge of inconsistency. Anything to change the subject.
Did I claim soil #1 had "innate spiritual ability? Nope, so yet another blatant falsehood.
Finally the fiction of judicial hardening is defended with an ad hominem.

Really, so I lied?

Then pull out the exact part of the post and refute it.

Does not the Scriptures state that "Even a child is known by their doing?"

Was there ANY mention of "soil?" Yet, here you are attempting to distract from being exposed.

Once again, you make huge claims about others but your own inconsistency is begging to be covered up.

You want to refute hardening, all types, yet you want to zero in on a term. Really.

You, who would post that ALL people have the innate ability to exercise their own faith in such a manner as to get God's attention that He might let Jesus know that the person needs to be saved, in direct violation of John 14:6, would question the term "judicial hardening?"

You, who would repeatedly present that a person has the innate ability to express to some level of acceptance by God who must also check it for honesty and earnestness prior to the granting of salvation and crediting them, would question "judicial hardening?"

Your own scheme doesn't present as something to take seriously, yet you would have the audacity to attempt to enlighten?

Is this not a direct quote of how you present salvation?

" The ungodly lost spiritually dead individuals first put their wholehearted trust in Christ, and then if God credits that faith as righteousness, He transfers them into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous, blameless and perfect. Thus the justification occrs after God puts a believer into Christ." (bold places done for sequential highlighting) (taken from: "Wrath of God" as used in the Scriptures)
​

You want a lost, spiritually dead, person to first "wholeheartedly trust Christ." And THEN God will respond.

And you want to be taken seriously?

 

[tyndale1946]

Pay no attention to this "change the subject" post, consisting of a denial of their total spiritual inability doctrine, and then agreeing that hardening precludes they were already hardened. If you have no ability, you would already be "obstinate." Just a post of nonsense. Ending as always with the outright utter false statement concerning "innate righteous capacity." No quote will be forthcoming because it is a complete falsehood that this poster posts again and again.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Now where is mans ability?... Brother Glen

 

[agedman]

Because you expressed desire for someone to respond to your presentation, I will go point by point showing where you are in agreement with Scriptures and were you are not.

Romans11:1-10 analysis and commentary by Van.

1: His people refers to those chosen under the promise of the Old Covenant, believing Jews. Not all of the blood line descendants of Abraham.

No, What "his people" refers to is to the line of Jacob and not the line of Esau nor the line (though not stated) of Ishmael.

"...how he appeals to God against Israel?" God never refers to the line of Esau or Ishmael as "Israel." That is reserved for the descendants of Jacob who was renamed "Israel."​

This then REMOVES the thinking of "BELIEVING" from the line of "believing Jews" and makes it Jews - believing or not.

2: His people (believing Jews) whom He foreknew (as part of the Old Covenant promise). Thus they were part of His previously formulated redemption plan under the Old Covenant Promise, not the Law.

See above remark concerning the word "believing."

3: Some of Abraham's descendants rejected God and killed His prophets. These were not part of "His people."

Wrong.
There is NO place at this time in the passage where such a distinction is made. Such a distinction is without Scripture support, and therefore an invalid assumption on your part.

4: But from among the blood line descendants, God chose 7000 based on the condition of their faith in Him, for they had not bowed the knee to Baal.

NO! At no point is the choice made upon "the condition of their faith in Him." Again, that is your assumption and not supported by the Scriptures.

Here is the quote from Romans 11: "...chosen by grace. 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

5: At the time of Paul's writing of Romans, there had come to a a remnant, in the same way, or in other words according to God's choice of believing Jews.

Totally an assumption on your part, and at no point supported by Romans 11. See note above concerning "believing Jews."

6. An election based on faith is a gracious choice, and is not an election based on works.

Here is the quote from Romans 11:

6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.​

You insert "faith" replacing the meaning with something that is foreign to the basic text of Romans 11 which majors upon the unmerited favor expressed to specific people.

7. Those seeking the promise by works were hardened, but those seeking the promise by faith were chosen. Note the timing of the choice, at the present time, rather than before creation.

Where are you finding this in Romans 11? There is nothing even suggesting "faith" as the determination of a promise!

8: The temporary hardening is as described in the OT.

This is correct

9: The temporary hardening is as described elsewhere in the OT.

This is also correct

10: Note the duration of the hardening appears to last the lifetime of the individuals hardened at that time, rather than the hardening of all Jews for an unspecified period of time. Thus the hardening ended many many years ago.

And from where do you get that such a "duration of hardening appears to the last of the lifetime of the individuals hardened at that time?"
There is absolutely no support for such thinking, but is mere assumption that has no validity.
Earlier in the post you referred to the time of the writing of the letter. Might I present for your consideration, that by the time Romans was written NONE of the original leaders who pushed for the crucifixion were alive? Therefore, Paul was writing of contemporaries who were not even around perhaps not even born.

My assumption can be just as valid as yours. Can you prove me wrong using historical and/or Scripture? Nope.

As you can see, this is a radically different take on the passage. Study the passage and two very different views and see what fits with the actual scripture.

Well, I have studied the passage.

Studied it many times.

And your scheme is nothing really new. But has been refuted by others as not "what fits with the actual Scriptures."

Anytime one has to insert words, replace words, make huge assumptions, then generally speaking they are not bringing true light to the passage.

 

[agedman]

Pay no attention to this "change the subject" post, consisting of a denial of their total spiritual inability doctrine, and then agreeing that hardening precludes they were already hardened. If you have no ability, you would already be "obstinate." Just a post of nonsense. Ending as always with the outright utter false statement concerning "innate righteous capacity." No quote will be forthcoming because it is a complete falsehood that this poster posts again and again.

Certainly, all have a measure of obstinacy. The Scriptures state that foolishness is bound in the heart of even a child. The same does sear the conscience and that searing further grows the obstinacy. It is all part of the human rejection of righteousness.

However, the Scriptures state that the heart of the ruler is subject to God. It further states that God will turn that heart to achieve His purposes.

Now, God said He hardened that ruler's heart. That said, I take it that it was hardened.

Moses, being the astute man he was, had already expressed reluctance, first about the mission and then about his own ability.

God said to Moses,"19But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. 20So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go."

Then after some more conversation, and Moses returning to Jethro telling of the mission and starting off, God again speaks to him saying, "21And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."

Now a casual reading may consider that pharaoh's heart needed further hardening to achieve the purposes of God. That would be consistent with the statement considering the rulers and the authority of God already mentioned above. That would also present a conflict with your own presentation.

Also, one who reads more carefully will know that God will compel compliance from the pharaoh "with his mighty hand." That compelling to compliance is an indication of the level of obstinacy. A continued and sustained obstinacy, a growing obstinacy until broken by death of the first born.

So when I posted that God's hardening of the heart was the confirmation of hardness into obstinacy, I was diligently following the Scripture principles.

That you do not recognize such principles being applied does not warrant my post to be lowered to your standard of acceptability.

 

[The Archangel]

4: But from among the blood line descendants, God chose 7000 based on the condition of their faith in Him, for they had not bowed the knee to Baal.

Um... no.

The construction of the Hebrew in 1 Kings 19 does not allow for this interpretation. The verb translated "I will leave" is a Hiphil stem and is, therefore, causative--the subject is causing the result of the verb. Paul's translation in Romans 11:4 is spot on: "I have left for myself..." God is not choosing those who have remained faithful to Him, rejecting Baal. The grammar clearly states (as Paul himself translates) that God's choosing of these 7000 is the cause of their faithfulness to God.

The Archangel

 

[glad4mercy]

God does not save by culture or race, he saves by his Amazing Grace... A true Jew is one inwardly, so I will go with scripture... God only saves those that are his... He is in the business of Salvation and brethren who think they have something to do with it ought to mind their own... Business that is!... God WILL save all his people just like he said he would!... Brother Glen

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

My argument does not have to do with saving by culture or race. As I have said at least five times, Jews are and will be saved the same way as Gentiles, by Grace through faith.

 

[glad4mercy]

So Glad4mercy, you have given up defending your bogus view, and have turned to ad hominems. Judicial hardening is a fiction, that is why you cannot reference support.

I do not believe you have ever understood Romans 11, based on the misrepresentations you made in the OP.

Romans 9 does indicate God hardens those of His choosing. Again demonstrating that "total spiritual inability" is a fiction, because if true scripture would say God softens those hardened as a consequence of the Fall. None of that is found in Romans 9 or anywhere else in scripture. Thus just another of the many fictions of the OP.

Romans does not say God softens those hardened as a consequence to the Fall, BECAUSE PAUL USES THE WORD "MERCIES" instead.

 

[glad4mercy]

all flesh

You're flesh too. So why should anyone listen to you?

 

[glad4mercy]

Pay no attention to this "change the subject" post, consisting of a denial of their total spiritual inability doctrine, and then agreeing that hardening precludes they were already hardened. If you have no ability, you would already be "obstinate." Just a post of nonsense. Ending as always with the outright utter false statement concerning "innate righteous capacity." No quote will be forthcoming because it is a complete falsehood that this poster posts again and again.

Your failure to understand something SO SIMPLE as "whom God wills, He mercies, and Whom He wills, He hardens"...that is where your argument fails, Van.

 

[glad4mercy]

Van,

Rarely do I read something and come away thinking that what I read has no basis in the presentation of Scriptures.


1) There is NONE righteous, not a single person, ALL have sinned and COME SHORT. Therefore, there is no righteousness to be found, and not "spiritual ability" as you present.

2) The "hardening" by God does not preclude that they "needed hardening." Rather, the hardening is the confirmation of hardness into obstinacy. Pharaoh was already hard, and God made him obstinately so as seen by his repeated refusals.

3) You do not understand nor know how to properly apply the concept of spiritual inability and continue to bluster instead of some diminished capacity but never-the-less some innate righteous capacity to get God's attention by some measure of self appeal in which He then looks upon for merit and standing that He may credit that appeal and grant salvation is just so lacking in Scripture support.

And you claim others are presenting something bogus?

I wonder what Van thinks are the effects of the Fall on the human race.

 

[glad4mercy]

I did. That sort of posting is just not proper for the BB.

It has no place and should not be allowed.

It is one thing to disagree strongly, even bring some accusation, but to state one worships the enemy of God is just wrong.

Thanks. I agree.

 

[glad4mercy]

Romans11:1-10 analysis and commentary by Van.

1: His people refers to those chosen under the promise of the Old Covenant, believing Jews. Not all of the blood line descendants of Abraham.

2: His people (believing Jews) whom He foreknew (as part of the Old Covenant promise). Thus they were part of His previously formulated redemption plan under the Old Covenant Promise, not the Law.

3: Some of Abraham's descendants rejected God and killed His prophets. These were not part of "His people."

4: But from among the blood line descendants, God chose 7000 based on the condition of their faith in Him, for they had not bowed the knee to Baal.

5: At the time of Paul's writing of Romans, there had come to a a remnant, in the same way, or in other words according to God's choice of believing Jews.

6. An election based on faith is a gracious choice, and is not an election based on works.

7. Those seeking the promise by works were hardened, but those seeking the promise by faith were chosen. Note the timing of the choice, at the present time, rather than before creation.

8: The temporary hardening is as described in the OT.

9: The temporary hardening is as described elsewhere in the OT.

10: Note the duration of the hardening appears to last the lifetime of the individuals hardened at that time, rather than the hardening of all Jews for an unspecified period of time. Thus the hardening ended many many years ago.

As you can see, this is a radically different take on the passage. Study the passage and two very different views and see what fits with the actual scripture.

You did great until point 10. The duration of the hardening is until the fullness of the Gentiles.

If that happened many years ago...

then the fullness of the Gentiles came in many years ago, during the lifetime of the individuals at that time.

Anyone with even a little bit of ability to interpret a text can see what is wrong with that argument.

 

[glad4mercy]

What he is saying that unless the Lord Jesus Christ said it, then not even the Apostles can be read as truthful.

It reminds me of some folks in the initial stages of the "Jesus Movement." They would study very diligently the statements of Christ, but pass over the rest of Scriptures, even to the point of dismissing sinful behaviors.

Some in this group did not consider the "whole counsel of God" extended to any other than Christ.

We still have some that do that same teaching and thinking. Surprisingly they are also the ones that sponsor the "National Prayer Breakfast" meetings. (Secretive Christian group at heart of D.C. politics ready for its close-up in Netflix docuseries)

Wow, I didn't realize that, but you are EXACTLY right in the first sentence. His statement, if taken at face value, would mean that he rejects all the Apostolic teachings of Paul, James, John, etc.

 

[glad4mercy]

Certainly, all have a measure of obstinacy. The Scriptures state that foolishness is bound in the heart of even a child. The same does sear the conscience and that searing further grows the obstinacy. It is all part of the human rejection of righteousness.

However, the Scriptures state that the heart of the ruler is subject to God. It further states that God will turn that heart to achieve His purposes.

Now, God said He hardened that ruler's heart. That said, I take it that it was hardened.

Moses, being the astute man he was, had already expressed reluctance, first about the mission and then about his own ability.

God said to Moses,"19But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. 20So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go."

Then after some more conversation, and Moses returning to Jethro telling of the mission and starting off, God again speaks to him saying, "21And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."

Now a casual reading may consider that pharaoh's heart needed further hardening to achieve the purposes of God. That would be consistent with the statement considering the rulers and the authority of God already mentioned above. That would also present a conflict with your own presentation.

Also, one who reads more carefully will know that God will compel compliance from the pharaoh "with his mighty hand." That compelling to compliance is an indication of the level of obstinacy. A continued and sustained obstinacy, a growing obstinacy until broken by death of the first born.

So when I posted that God's hardening of the heart was the confirmation of hardness into obstinacy, I was diligently following the Scripture principles.

That you do not recognize such principles being applied does not warrant my post to be lowered to your standard of acceptability.

You are absolutely correct in this post. I would even add that Pharoah's obstinancy continued beyond the death of the Firstborn, which is why his entire army drowned in the Red Sea.

God is able to restrain evil even in those who are not saved. He is also able to remove His hand of restraint. And He is able to MERCY those whom He mercies.

All are done according to His eternal purpose.

Calvinists who defend Van's argument against the truth are denying the Sovereignty of God. I am not a Calvinist, but I wholly believe in the Sovereignty of God.

Even Calvin believed in a restoration such as I am describing.

In Van's theology, it seems to be all about what man is able to do.

 

[glad4mercy]

Yet another post containing falsehood after falsehood.

Note the non-answer to the question of why hardened those already supposedly hardened, but instead a change of subject. Partial quote.
.

Why don't you just read the book of Romans, and then you would get your answer.

Romans 1:28

Now this is a somewhat different matter than the hardening in Romans 11, but it clearly shows that people in general (who are already in a state of rebellion) can be judicially dealt with by God, resulting in further hardening.

You haven't learned how to connect the teachings in the Bible yet. Keep reading, but keep humble.

 

[Van]

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Now where is mans ability?... Brother Glen

The subject is Romans 11, but I will address this off topic post one more time. Verse 14 says "the things" of the Spirit of God, not all the things or some of the things. Therefore we must use context to determine the scope of the statement. Now look at 1 Corinthians 3:1 where Paul speaks to new born Christians as to men of flesh. This clearly teaches that men of flesh (natural men, unregenerate men) can understand and grow with the "Milk" referring to the fundamentals of the gospel.

Therefore the unregenerate person has limited spiritual ability, able to understand spiritual milk but not spiritual solid food (meat).