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...
Do you think Pharaoh being hardened is a foreshadowing of Israel?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Aug 24, 2011.
Page 3 of 5
-
Common:
Vine's:Just as we have some household vessels made to hold treasure, and others made in which to defecate, God has vessels in which to shed grace, and others in which to pour His indignation and righteous judgment.
atimia (819), from a, negative, timē, "honor," denotes "dishonor, ignominy, disgrace," in Rom. 1:26, "vile passions" (RV), lit., 'passions of dishonor;" in Rom. 9:21, "dishonor," of vessels designed for meaner household purposes (in contrast to timē, "honor," as in 2 Tim. 2:20)
Thayer's:
dishonor, ignomony, disgrace ...(...in a state of disgrace, used of the unseemliness and offensiveness of a dead body);...for a dishonorable use, of vessels...
That is what is being said.
-
That destroys your presumption that those individuals who are "cut off" or "hardened" are the non-elect reprobates destined for destruction.
-
The lump means there is no difference between the substance of the vessels. One is not gold and the other clay. There is nothing inherently more valuable in Jacob than in Esau, or in you than in Charles Manson.
So why do some remain in their profanity and others are converted?
God's will in election. That's it. -
-
One who is dishonored is one under judgment. There is no escaping that fact.
You still don't get it. God is able to graft them in, yes, but will He? The point is that the wild branches have nothing that the natural branches don't have, just as there is nothing in the clay of the vessel made unto honor that is not in the clay of the vessel made unto dishonor.
So what makes some clay into a vessel of honor and some into vessels of dishonor?
God's will. That's it.
You want everything about God to be impersonal. Christ didn't bear individuals on the Cross, He bore the curse. God doesn't elect individuals, He elects jobs. God doesn't save an individual, He saves a class of people, those who were good enough to respond properly to His general call and choose to believe.
But what we have presented in Rom. 9 is intensely personal. He didn't choose Esau to have a dirty job. He hated Esau personally. He didn't choose Jacob to have a good job. He loved Jacob personally. Why? Not because of themselves, but because of Himself.
That's it. That's what's being said. It's not hard to see or understand, you just can't believe it. You're the one saying "Why doth He yet find fault?" so you make up this image of God that conforms to your carnal sense of justice and the rest is academic.
-
-
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...
-
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. -
God's will, not man's will—God's ability, not man's ability is the focus here.
-
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?
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." -
Paul says it because of you.
Perseverance is a sign of election, not the cause of it. Same with faith, humility, godly sorrow, meekness, mercy, persecution, etc. You're looking at the signs of a thing and calling them the cause.
One is not saved because he perseveres. He perseveres because he is saved. One is not saved because he believes. He believes because he is saved.
The witness of the Spirit is that God hated Esau. No where is it said that God changed toward him. In Hebrews, he is said to be profane, i.e. dishonored, and we are warned against those like him. I'm certain, because God has revealed His will concerning Esau. You're uncertain, because you think Esau's will is the efficacious factor. -
-
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." -
Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.To apply your reasoning, you're forced to presume that some rocks are elect. After all, why "brag" about God's ability to raise some up as sons of Abraham if He has no intention of doing so, unless he just wanted to confuse his audience?
My answer is that John's point isn't that God is going to call any rocks to repentance. His point is that the Pharisee's have nothing brag about, and that they are where they are, and the stones are where they are because of God's will, not by an inherent quality. In other words, the stones have as much hope in themselves of salvation as the Pharisees, and the Pharisees boast?
My answer is, your presuppositions are non-sequiturs. They're illogical. Not only are they unsupported by the writers of Scripture, the writers of Scripture counter them. Now, let's just stick to the point of the passage, and quit reading into it things that aren't there.
So what's the point of the passage? The only difference between the elect and non-elect is God's will. That's it. Not some deficiency, not some quality, not some choice on their part. God and God alone. Esau's mention with Pharoah as a fellow vessel unto dishonor pulls the rug out from under your judicial hardening theories.
Two Israel's are defined by Paul. One is spiritual Israel, the other is natural Israel. According to the flesh, unbelieving Jews are children of Abraham through Sarah, but according to the spirit, they are children of Abraham through Hagar. They are not free, but slaves. So what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
The tree represents spiritual Israel. Some of the natural branches, those who are children of Abraham by the flesh, are part of that tree. They believe and are blessed with Abraham, the father of the faithful. Some Gentiles are part that tree. Just as the cut off branches were never part of the tree, the wild branches grafted in were never absent. In Paul's picture, we never see the branches that were cut off abiding in the tree, neither do we see the wild branches absent. We are presented with a tree made up of some natural branches and some wild branches. Don't assume that Paul meant for anyone to take it further than that. You find it confusing because your are encumbered by an irrational need to go beyond the prima facia symbolism. Don't assume that the First Century audience felt that same need. If you must take the symbolism further, I've never known a husbandman to prune a tree for the sake of saving the branches he cut off. The branches he cut off are destined for the fire.
-
(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.}
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:
"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." -
-
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Is Christ saying here that the one cast forth as a branch abode in Christ at one time, but does no longer, or is it that the man never did abide in him? Why compare him to a branch at all? -
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. -
Page 3 of 5