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

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?

 

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!"

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:

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.

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.

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."

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?

Not even the elect who have been effectually regenerated?

 

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.

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.

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:

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."

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

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.

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?

 

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:

 

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.

 

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: