Any Calvinist willing to walk through Romans 11 with me?

There is never a problem with discussing anything. When you start drawing conclusions that are not supported by the text, there may be a problem.:wavey:

I disagree.

In the very next verse, Paul says, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Paul is speaking of individuals in Romans 9, elaborating on his comment concerning the "children of the promise" that are also identified as the "elect" from both Jew and Gentiles and/or the "remnant" from the Jews.

God foreknew them (in relationship) and in His mercy, declared these individuals to be His elect. He predestined them, called them, justified them and will glorify them (8v.29-30)

Paul goes on to expand his argument in chap. 10 and 11, where he speaks generally of Jews and Gentiles and the grafting into the tree.

I understand what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree.

One thing that must be kept in mind is that Paul has already revealed that the elect most certainly will be saved and will, therefore, be branches on the tree that will not be cut off.

Again, the elect remnant of the Jews will most certainly be saved and grafted into the tree.

At the time of the fullness of the Gentiles, there is the possibility that every single Jew alive at that time will be saved (grafted back in).

peace to youraying:

 

Perhaps Paul, himself, was such an individual. What's your point?

Actually, as I said, Paul begins his point concerning individuals "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" and then expands his point to speak of Jews and Gentiles generally.

This is seen in v.19-21 where he speaks of an individual talking back to God; "who are you, Oh man, who answers back to God?" and of the potter making vessels (pots) "one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use". He is speaking of individuals here. He speaks of specific persons; Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh to make his point.

I don't see how the analogy makes sense if the vessels are Jews and Gentiles, in general, instead of individuals, because the "elect" come from both Jews and Gentiles.

If Paul is speaking generally of Jews and Gentiles, then one group or the other is considered an honorable vessel and the other is considered a common vessel. One group or the other is considered a vessel of mercy and the other is considered a vessel of wrath.

I don't think the context can support that view.

In his analogy of the vessels, Paul says in v.23-24 "And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (24)even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

Back in chp.8, Paul speaks of those whom God foreknew, predestined, called, justified and glorfied. These are the "elect" of 8v.33. The "elect" are also called the "children of the promise" found in chp. 9 v.8. These are also called the "vessels of mercy" in 9v.23.

These "elect" come "not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

Paul then begins to expand his arugment to speak of Jews and Gentiles in general.

It makes sense, it just doesn't fit the context of the passage. Clearly, Paul is speaking of the "elect" of God as those who are being saved.

peace to youraying:

 

First, I don't know what Calvinists typically presume.

Second, the use of "hardens" in chp. 9 v.18 is speaking of an individual... Pharoah... and he is a Gentile and a reprobate.

I said:

You responded:

It is not the same, as I already demonstrated.

The individual is the hypothetical interlocutor that Paul is using to make his point. It is someone who is accusing God of being unfair because God choses whom He will saved based on His own mercy and not on what they do. Chap. 9v.14+

This is where your focus on the individual in chp. 11 is distorting what is being taught in the passage.

Chap 9, and it's focus on the individual is talking about the "elect" being a vessels of mercy (of both Jew and Gentile). The use of "hardens" in chp. 9 is specifically concerning Pharoah.

Chp. 9 is talking specifically about God choses whom He will for salvation and showing that person mercy and compassion.

When Paul expands the argument to talk about the Jews and Gentiles generally, he speaks of the "hardening" and being "cut off" or "grafted in".

Paul doesn't speak of absolutes, as you said. Not every Jew is "hardened". There are some who are saved. Not every Gentile is grafted in. There are many who are not.

His purpose of the whole discourse about the tree and the branches is to remind the Gentile Christians not to be proud or look down upon Jews.

I don't believe the lump of clay in chp. 9 represents Israel, for a couple of reasons. First, the discussion arises out of the discourse concerning Pharoah. He was not part of Israel and was a vessel of common use/vessel of wrath created for that very purpose. Also, because the vessels of mercy include the Gentiles.

There is so much in this to critique, I honestly don't know where to start. You are combining/substituting/switching back and forth throughout chp.9-11, ignoring, IMHO, the contexts to attempt to make a point that isn't supported.

First, the "two groups" from the same lump of clay in Chp. 9 are identified as 1. vessels of mercy and 2. vessels of wrath. The vessels of mercy include Jews and Gentiles. These are the elect of God chosen for salvation. The vessels of wrath include Jews and Gentiles. These are the non-elect.

The "two groups" from chp. 11 are 1. branches from the cultivated olive tree and 2. branches from the wild olive tree. The first are Jews and the second are Gentiles.

Second, to say the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction is contrary to chap. 9v.22 which clearly says God prepared them beforehand for destruction.

Thirdly, you switched Paul's argument for the "elect" or vessels of mercy, which includes the Gentiles, and transplanted it into chp. 11 and the grafting into the tree.

I have to admit, you are confusing. It appears you have something to say, but either don't know how to say it plainly or you are attempting to get me to say it for you.

It seems you believe the discussion about the "elect" refer only to apostles, but that is contrary to the context. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

Given the nature of so many of your threads, I suspect you believe these passages teach something about man's free-will or something that undermines "calvinism" in your view.

peace to youraying:

 

You've written much more than I want to address. Let's focus of chp.9

Concerning Pharoah, it was about His individual salvation (or lack thereof) and about God accompplishing a great purpose through him. The "great purpose" is to "cause all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (chp.8:28)"

God's purpose is to bring His elect, from both Jew and Gentile, to salvation.

The focus of chp. 9 is the "elect". If you lose sight of that, you miss the point Paul is making. Your belief that the "elect" are simply the apostles appointed to preach is not supported by the text.

If you go back to chp.8 v.28 "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

He "foreknew", "predestined", "called", "justified, and "glorified"; of which nothing can separate them from the Love of God.

These "elect" are further identified as the "children of the promise" (9v.8) and they are the "children of God" and inherit the promises of God. Notice v.11, "....in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls."

God is "calling" His elect, children of promise, children of God, according to His purpose. Those He calls, He will justify and glorify. This is speaking of personal salvation. They inherit the promises of God.

Paul then appeals to scripture to strengthen His argument that it is God who choses whom He will "call" as His elect, children of promise, children of God.

v.15 "...I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

v.16 "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Paul then gives the discourse concerning the Potter and the clay, the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy. He is still speaking of God chosing whom He will call as His "elect".

The "vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" is a reference back to chp 8v.29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined..." It is referring to the "elect".

So, chp. 9 is clearly dealing with personal salvation.

peace to youraying:

In the context of chp. 9, "showing mercy" is equated with bringing the elect to salvation.

As far as the hardening meaning "certain condemnation", I don't agree with that. Paul says the hardening is "partial". (11:25)

Paul identifies the wild olive branches that have been grafted into the cultivated olive tree as "you" (11:17). He is referring to Gentile Christians, not every Gentile.

Not every branch from the wild olive tree is grafted into the cultivated olive tree. The branches on the cultivated olive tree certainly refer to all the Jews. Some are cut off and some remain. In the same way, only some of the branches of the wild olive are grafted in.

I keep repeating myself. Please read what I write, ok.

In chp. 8:28-39, Paul describes God's intervention/relationship with His "elect".(v.33). The "elect" are referred to as "us" (vv.31,32,34,35,37,39). The "us" refers to Christians, both Jewish (like Paul) and Gentiles (Roman Christians).

These "elect" are referred to in chp. 9 as "children of the promise" and "children of God)(v.8). They are also the "vessels of honor" and "vessels of mercy" (v.21-23). The "vessels of mercy" are called "not from the Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles."

The only perspective I have is to read the text in the context that it was written and believe what it says. Whether your explanation is "MUCH simpler" or not (that is debatable), it is not consistent with the context of the passage.

Very odd. How do you know Paul's "INTENT" beyond the context of what he has written?

The focus is on the certainty of salvation. That is what it says.

The context of chp. 9 does not support this interpretation.

It does no such thing.

Your reasoning is based upon a faulty, IMHO, interpretation of chp. 9. Your focus on the "individual" in chap. 11 leads you to conclude that Paul is saying that individual Jews that are "hardened" can be grafted back in and individual Gentiles can be "cut off".

Paul is saying, in chp. 11, that generally speaking, God has hardened the Jews so the Gospel will go to the Gentiles, and at some point (depending on your interpretation of the fulness of the Gentiles), the Jews can be grafted back in (generally speaking), not individually speaking.

Paul is not saying that individual Jews will be hardened, cut off, and grafted back in. He is speaking of Jews generally... unless you believe the "fulness of the Gentiles" has already occurred? Do you believe that?

We have been debating with grace and mutual respect. I will ask you not to spoil this effort by accusing me of making God the author of Israel's rebellion and believing God is being "disingenuouly pretending to long for Israel".

It is not true and nothing I have written could lead you to believe that.

peace to youraying:

 

The question is "what does the passage teach in Romans 9?" It is clear what it teaches in context. I have repeatedly sought to show you the context. You refuse to accept it.

What you are saying is the exact same emotional response of the interlocutor of chp. 9v.19

"You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Paul's answer, then, is my answer to you.

I appreciate our attempt address these passages of scripture in a civil way. It has run its course and I am done.

peace to youraying:

 

Adam Clarke is a Methodist theologian. I understand the positions he takes. I don't believe they are supported by the context of the passages in question.

I'm sure he was above reproach in his life and ministry, but so are many "calvinists" or "reformed" theologians who would disagree with him and use their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to support their positions.

My best argument, IMHO, is that I am following the context. I don't believe you are. For instance, your comment that the "elect" are the apostles is not supported by the text.

You have a stated agenda, which is to oppose "calvinism". So, you read nothing objectively, but you always look for a way to make the passage support your position and/or undermine "calvinism". That is clouding your judgment, IMHO.

I have no agenda. I come to the text objectively. I attempt to understand it in the context that it is written, believe what it says, and conform my life to that truth.

The bottom line is, we are not going to agree. We have both repeated our arguments several times. The debate has run its course. It is time to be done and move on.

peace to youraying:

 

Skandelon, I think you have done a good job explaining Romans 9. The problem is that many do not understand that Paul was speaking to Jews who knew the OT scriptures. When Paul speaks of the potter having power over the clay in Romans 9, the Jews present would have immediately recognized that Paul was referring to Jeremiah chapter 18 where God originally speaks of the potter having power over the clay. And in Jeremiah 18 God was speaking of nations and his power to build up, or pluck down. But God did not do this without just reason.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Now take this verse and compare it to Jeremiah 18.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

In vs. 6 God declares that as a potter he has a right to do whatsoever he pleases with the clay in his hands. Notice in verses 7-8 he speaks of a nation that he has intentions to destroy, but says if they turn from their evil he will repent of the evil he intended to do unto them.

Notice in verses 9-10 he says the opposite, here he speaks of a nation he intended to build and plant, and here says if they do evil and will not obey his voice, then he will repent of the good he had intended to show them.

So, when reading these verses concerning the potter in Romans 9 you have to understand the Jews would understand Paul of referring to Jeremiah 18. Yes, God in his sovereignty has the right to do whatsoever he pleases with any man or nation, but God is not arbitrarily choosing to destroy one person or nation and blessing another person or nation without just cause.

You cannot understand the NT unless you have a good knowledge of the OT.

 

Yes, He shall save His people from their sins, just as was prophesied throughout the Old Testament. His people would include a remnant of Jews and a portion of Gentiles. He would be the Root of Jesse that the Gentiles would seek. He would provoke the Israelites to jealousy by a "foolish nation." He would call them His people who were not His people.

I agree with this. I have always understood the branches and grafting in Romans 11 to be about the Jews and Gentiles in general.

However, within these groups are elect individuals. The proportion of saved Jews to saved Gentiles is relatively lower and illustrates the "big picture" of the grafting and branches.

Romans 11:1-6 shows why the Jews have been "cut off." They were cut off because they rejected their Messiah. However, God still provided a remnant as He promised and prophesied. Just as He reserved (not observed) seven thousand men not to bow to Baal, He provided a remnant of Jews according to the election of grace.

Romans 9:27-29 provides some of this context as well. God promised a remnant of Israel would be saved. He left a seed. If He did not leave a seed, the entire nation would have been as Sodom and Gomorrah.

The reason that the Jews as a whole rejected their Messiah was because of their own willful sin. The reason that there is a remnant that believe is because of God's grace. This remnant did not deserve God's grace any more than the rest of the nation. They are the way they are because God saved a remnant. He finished the work. He cut it short in righteousness. He left a seed. He reserved them to Himself. He elected them according to grace. If God did not do all this on behalf of this remnant, they would not have been a remnant at all.

 

No sir, that isn't true. You have admitted that chps. 10-11 are speaking of Jews and Gentiles generally. But the foundation of your argument is that Paul is actually speaking of individuals and then you speculate on that.

I don't see the word "noble" in chp.9. Please point that out to me.

The reference to "purpose" in chp. 9 is referring to Pharoah, not the remnant.

This is just one more example of how you take the passage out of context, mix and match, and attempt to prove a point against calvinism.

I ususally just take people at their word since I have no reason to doubt what they are saying. However, I must admit to being perplexed concerning you.

You claim to have been an ardent "calvinist" for 10 years, and yet you can't really articulate the "calvinist" argument for these passages.

Instead, you repeat the same old arguments against reformed doctrine. You point me to Adam Clarke as a theologian that I should study, but can't really explain why he is any more informed than any of the prominent "calvinists" of the same period.

Are you a Methodist, pretending to be a Baptist who used to be a calvinist but has now embranced arminianism?:smilewinkgrin:

IMHO, you believe...

1. "foreknew" (8:29) means foreknowledge of who will believe.

2. God's "elect" refer to remnant Israel and no one else. Among these "elect" are the Apostles and Jews who will take the gospel to the world.

3. Except for the remnant, Israel has been "judicially hardened" by God because of their rebellion.

4. This judicial hardening accomplished the gospel going to the Gentiles, giving them the opportunity to exercise their free will and be saved. This is evidenced by the grafting language of chp.11.

5. "hardening" doesn't mean non-elect or unsaved. Those who are "hardened" can be saved at anytime, should they exercise their free will and accept Jesus Christ as Savior. This is evidenced by the grafting language of chp.11.

6. If God choses who will be saved, then God is disengenuous when scripture says He holds out His hands to Israel. IOW's, God is a liar if He choses who will be saved because scripture says He held out His hands to people of whom He knew would not be saved.

Please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your position. However...

....since you are a former calvinist for 10 years, would you please tell me how a calvinist would answer each of these points? What scripture would the calvinist use to support his argument? How would the calvinist anticipate the arminian response?

If you can't accurately articulate the calvinist's argument, how can I be convinced that you are sincere about being a calvinist for 10 years?

peace to youraying:

 

I honestly don't know how you get the noble purpose is that of an apostle. I don't think you can get that from this text without a goodly amount of in-reading.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I have explained why the language in Romans 9, in context, does not fit speaking "generally" of Israel and Gentiles. It is personal in nature. So, in context, to see a "consistent" general message to Jews and Gentiles is not warranted.

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose..." 8:28. I think I mentioned that.

Well, since "apostle" isn't mentioned anywhere in the text, I don't understand how you can proclaim this interpretation to be "clear".

As I said, I'm not a calvinist.

canadyjd said:

skandelon responded:

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

And you assume I don't "grapple" with scripture and other people's interpretation thereof. That isn't true.

I followed the link and read (attempted to read) the commentary on Rom. 9-11. It was, as I susupected, the arminian perspective. Nothing new.

Concerning your attempt to articulate calvinist doctrine, I can only tell you what I believe, since I'm not a calvinist. I have read from others about reformed doctrine, however.

partially correct which equals incorrect. Nothing about looking through the corridors of time is needed to understand "foreknew".

correct

Incorrect. They were "hardened" because of their rebellion against God and His Law.

? Never heard this before.. but then again, I'm not a calvinist.

Incorrect. Judicial hardening refers generally to Jews and is partial, meaning some will be saved. It will be lifted at some point. Perhaps all Jews will be saved at that point.

Incorrect. God's expressions of longing and love are genuine. He really does want everyone to repent and believe. No one responds favorably to His expressions, because no one is able due to sin. God, of course, knows this, but that doesn't make His expressions any less genuine. God, in His mercy, actively intervenes and saves those He has chosen.

Incorrect. Although the result is that their rebellion (and God's love) is more clearly shown, that is not the "only" reason that God makes His invitations.

Quite frankly, rather poorly.

Although I was just kidding before, I have to admit that you really do sound like a Methodist, pretending to be a Baptist who used to be a calvinist and has now embraced arminianism.

I think you are a man who has deep convictions on these issues. I pray before God that you have not compromised your integrity in this pursuit.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you. But since you really can't articulate reformed doctrine very well, and you didn't answer my question directly before, please tell me plainly that you are not pretending to be a baptist or pretending that you used to be a calvinist.

If you tell me that you are not pretending on these issues, I will believe you and never bring it up again.

peace to youraying: