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

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).

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?

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...

 

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

 

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...

 

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.

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 just quoted Paul in Romans 11...

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

 

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.

 

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?

You believe that knowledge can humble someone? Interestingly contradictory.

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 a martyr you are! :laugh:

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?

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

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."

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?'

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

 

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):

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."

 

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.}

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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:

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."

 

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.

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.

 

Aaron, can you answer this question, please?