God, That's not fair!

If what you say is true then you have some explaining to do. What about the passages that speak of the hardened Jews being provoked to Jealousy and being saved? (I don't need to quote them again do I?)

I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean God didn't want their salvation before he hardened them, only after? I don't understand. Sorry.

Rahab never heard and believed the gospel. Neither did Jonah for example. They lived before that mystery was made known. Their salvation was bought through Christ all the same, but to them it was applied through faith in God. I personally believe someone who has never heard the gospel can believe in God, and be a God fearing man, as was Cornelous, and that be credited to them as righteousness. I think the evidence of Romans 1 and a few other passages give us enough to base that belief, though I recognize that is debatable, and I could be wrong.

I'm fine with the words "granted" or "given," that does nothing to change the issues of our debate. Jews, with the exception of the 12, were not "granted" to come to Jesus. Why? They were being Hardened, not because they were born Totally depraved as Calvinism assumes.

If it is not granted or given to someone to do something then they are not able to do it. Right? If they are not able to do it they must be "enabled," which is why these translators felt this was an appropriate translation. Either way the text doesn't say, "No one can come to me unless God grants them the ability to be willing." However, if it did mean that, we still would have the exact same issue. Why weren't the Jews able to be willing? Because they were being temporarily hardened, not because they were born that way.

Yes, God does ordain the means. The gospel, a source of knowledge and persuation, both of which are provokers of man's will but are rendered useless by Calvinistic doctrine. And now we admit that jealousy is a means God has ordained as a provoker of man's will that is also rendered useless by Calvinistic doctrine. So too miracles, prayer and other such means God chose to provide as provokers of man's will have been rendered impotent by Calvinism. These provokers God has gone to all the trouble to "ordain" and instruct us in and call us to are absolutely powerless in the Calvinistic system. For, according to Calvinists, the only means that man's will can truly be provoked to believe in Christ is by the effectual calling.

Why does God bother with all the rest when only one is needed? What is their purpose really?

Why are they not his sheep? This is same as the question, "Why are they not ingrafted branches? Because they are currently being hardened. But according to Paul and according to the what history revealed, many of those who were hardened later believed and were saved. They were brought into the sheep fold.

Thank you for having the objectivness to see that. Its nice to be understood. You don't have to always agree with me, just as I won't with you, but it is nice to be understood and not misrepresented. Thanks!!!!

I will note, the the objection, "God that's not fair." Is a common reaction from Arminians and some Calvinists assume it is this objection that Paul is anticipating in Romans 9 (I know becase I used to always use that arguement), but that is not the case. He is not objecting to what an Arminian might say, he is objecting to what a Jew might say.

Remember Jews believed like Calvinists in some since, they just thought they were the only elect. They were finding out for the first time that God can have mercy on whomever he wants and it doesn't depend on the man who wills or runs after keeping the law, but on God's mercy. They also learned that many of those they thought were elect were being temporarly hardened as the dirty unclean Gentiles were being grafted in. That is why they thought it was unfair.

We can do that, but I still would like to hear your response to this question:

Why were the Jews in John 6 unable to believe?

That's funny you say that. I was just talking to a Calvinists who was saying that TD was the crux of the whole debate. In fact, I remember Sproul saying the same thing.

If you can't establish TD then the rest fall apart. TD proves the need for Effectual Calling and EC proves the need for Unconditional Election. I see it as more like 3rd on the list. But we can go there if you'd like, after we get that question answered.

 

But we must be careful with some of these "questions". Many of them are probably not what scripture asks, so we should not be looking for this magical doctrine that seems to explain everything, read it into the scriptures, and then judge both the other side for how well it "puts together" these "pieces". I inf it funny, for instance, the dialoge on "Can Arminians Believe"?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Skandelon:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by massdak:
what about people who hear a false gospel is that unfair, it would seem that they have not be given the chance to believe in the real Jesus. what is your excuse for this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I address this more fully in the other thread, but I will just say that I believe people are held accountable according to what has been revealed. Like the Jews and Gentiles in Romans 1 and 2 each group is judged based upon the revelation given them. It will be the same, IMO, for those who haven't heard the gospel. They will still stand without exuse because of the natural revelation and their conscience if they have refused to have regard for what God has revealed to them.

I don't believe God will hold man accountable to anything that He has not revealed to them, otherwise they WOULD have an excuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i believe you try to use human reasoning for what you think justice should be like.
------------------------------
Notice how the Calvinist asks a hypothetical question (which Arminianism tends to leave as its "tension" and not explain fully), and when the non-Calvinist tries to answer this according to the Bible as best as he can, the non-Calvinist is then accused of "using human reasoning". But the Bible does not address the question of "the justice of the condemnation of those who never hear". Romans 1 & 2 come the closest to addressing something like that.

The definition of "sheep" is "those who hear his voice". Since all start out not hearing His voice, (and being, essentially, goats) then "sheep" is not a preordained state. The "other sheep not of this fold"(v.16) were other believers in Christ who had not yet joined His following (as in Luke 9:49,50), and perhaps also those Jews who believed from the reports that Christ had come but had not yet seen that Jesus was that Christ. It does not seem to be describing "all who will ever become saved in the future" as has been suggested.

I think the reason why this seems so, is because people are having a hard time articulating the scriptural truth they are trying to maintain. They object "God would not do that", and the Calvinists assume this is just coming from "their own human sense of fairness", but it is based on scriptural principle.

Even though Calvinists maintain that condemnation is because of sin, still, Calvinism tries to explain the "big picture" of how salvation is accomplished, and the viewpoint of God, as He conceives of each individual person from eternity, and assigns them "mercy" or "wrath". The corollary of this is that God condemns people for some other reason besides sin. Sin is just a part of a bigger cause by which God damns people unconditionally, simply because of His "sovereign pleasure". This changes the whole picture of how God reveals Himself in scripture-- as primarily love, with wrath or hatred being reactive to sin. Even though God "has the right to do whatever He wants", He is still revealed as one who does not do harm to anyone unless they are sinning against Him. He has no other reason for that. That is the only thing that brings His wrath.
Remember, nearly all Calvinists use Romans 9, and some other passages such as 1 Pet.2:8 to try to explain that big picture: that God's decision of who goes to Heaven or Hell ultimately comes from His eternal decree "before they were born and did good or evil". This REMOVES their condemnation from the context of "their sin" (which they committed in time, after they were born), into a decree that has nothing to do with, as they cite them "doing any good or evil". (the timely "sin" being something added later to seemingly justify this decree!) Ask them why, then it's "God's sovereignty"; He "does as He pleases", He, as the "Potter" has the "right" to make "vessels of wrath", etc. Accuse them of having God damn people apart from sin, then "that is not what we believe; God justly leaves people in the condemnation for their 'freely chosen sin'", but ask them further, the "sin" or "choice" is something charged to them through Adam; not something they actually did. Ask them why He would do this to people and "hold them responsible" and withold salvation from many, then once again, it is "God's sovereignty"; He "does as He pleases", He, as the "Potter" has the "right" to make "vessels of wrath"! And around and around it goes.

This is what people oppose, and it becomes more a defensive argument about what scripture does not teach, than about what it does teach. This is then interpreted as simply a human objection of "that is not fair".

 

Not saying that God particularly goes after non-wise people, because as, I believe it was Skandelon, said, that would contradict their own point of God's choice not being of something within the man.
I think all that passage means is that people who are wise tend to think they are too smart for the things of God. As other scriptures say, "the things of God are foolishness to them that perish". People who are rich don't want to give up all they have, as we see elsewhere, and neither do most of the talented in the world. Someone who does not have all of this may be more likely to see His need and come to God. That is the point of this passage. You may be "foolish", but then you are what God uses more, and He will use you to confound the wise.

 

Men in my weak way of thinking and i maybe wrong.I believe when the last little gentile child of grace is called out then as the Jews suffered there wrath in 70 ad ,the same wrath will come on the gentiles.The mantle of belief will go back to the jews,and their candle will begin to glow.As time goes on America is plunged deeper and deeper into the sin of sodom and gomorrah for satan knows he has little time.While God is everly a drawing his children out in these latter days by the softning of the heart people that are not his are their hearts are getting harder.Satan on the other hand is gathering his children into his kingdom of darkness.Which is Jews and Gentiles that are impenitent(not remorsefull toward God in the heart) in other words they treasure up wrath (full of hate)contenTious.Romans 2:1 through 11.This is my mind on it ,but like so many things i could be wrong so weigh it out among yourselves.

Not saying that God particularly goes after non-wise people, because as, I believe it was Skandelon, said, that would contradict their own point of God's choice not being of something within the man.
I think all that passage means is that people who are wise tend to think they are too smart for the things of God. As other scriptures say, "the things of God are foolishness to them that perish". People who are rich don't want to give up all they have, as we see elsewhere, and neither do most of the talented in the world. Someone who does not have all of this may be more likely to see His need and come to God. That is the point of this passage. You may be "foolish", but then you are what God uses more, and He will use you to confound the wise. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

No, I understand what you said about the lost. I understand your position, I'm disagreeing with it. Romans 9 is interpreted by Calvinists as being a support text for their believe that God choose some (elect) and not others (non-elect). The verse that says, "He has mercy on who he want to have mercy and he hardens who he wants to hardened." Is often used to support this doctrine. But what I am pointing out is that those being shown mercy are not necessarly going to be saved and those being hardened aren't necessarily going to be condemned therefore the Calvinistic rendering is incorrect. God shows mercy to all men by calling all men to Himself through the gospel and he has judicially hardened the Jews for a particular time, but as Paul states some of them may be saved. Therefore, Romans 9 CANNOT be interpreted as Calvinists have said.

I agree to an extent. My point was that even in OT times the salvation came by faith and at that time the gospel message hadn't come to pass as it has today. The people before Christ were refered to as "God fearing men," etc. Not really believers in Christ. Christ's coming was the message of hope but it was a mystery that the Gentiles would be included as well.

I think i agree with this but it is debatable even apart from our discussion on the Calvinism/Arminian issue. I think a case can be made for God's judgement being based upon the extent of the revelation. I do admit that there is speculation involved because the Bible is not clear on the issue, but the same is true on many issues that we would like to know all the answers for. It really doesn't change the impact of our debate one way or another. Why? Because we can't really know what happens to those who never hear the gospel because the Bible never specifically says. Just as it never really says what happen to babies if they die or animals etc.

I disagree. I know he didn't specifically say "Jew" can't come, but he is talking to Jews and its not at all far fetched to think that he could be saying, "None of you can come to me..." Instead of "No one in all of history..."

Just as Calvinists interpret "all" to mean "all of the elect" so too these passages can be understood within context in which he is speaking. And the fact that John in chapter 17 again refers to the apostles as being "those given to him by the father" only supports this interpretation. Plus, when he says, "NNE" I think he could have meant NNE in the world at that time. The Gentiles had not been granted to come to him either. Later the Gentile are granted repentance as you point out, but not until later. At that time the remnant of Israel were the only ones granted to come to Jesus, the rest were hardened or the message was being hidden from them.

Your example proves my point. Jesus' parents trip to Egypt is the means that God used to protect them, he didn't have to do it that way, but HE did and the trip accomplished his goal. THE MEANS WORKED. The means of the gospel, jealousy and the like don't work. They aren't needed. They don't accomplish anything except to cause confusion to your system.

I'll pick up there when I get back.

 

What you call a "scheme" is truth. Let me prove it. The sheep Jesus is refering to in John 10, at that time and place were ones that "heard his voice and followed him" namely the apostles for they were the Jews that were "listening and following." But there were others who needed to be brought in, namely the Gentiles.

You go on to say that this must mean "all Jews must be converted in every generation." I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Just because the judicial hardening has been lifted doesn't mean some of them won't continue in their own self hardened state. Lifting the hardening doesn't gaurentee that they will become sheep it just give them the opportunity.

Then you say, "He told these Jews that they would die in their sins." Actually he said, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." In short, if they continue in their unbelief, they will die in their sins.[/quote][/qb]Now, I agree that John 10 doesn't have complete enough information for my proof but other texts that relate do.

Let go back to the analogy of the ingrafted branch in Romans 11. This is a very important passage because Paul is explaining a theological mystery that he wants us to understand, where as Jesus was addressing a group of people that he was hiding the gospel from and was not intending to fully explain his intent. Paul's intent is quite clear. How do these two analogies relate.

Ingrafted branch = those being saved
Sheep = those being saved

therefore,

Sheep = ingrafted branch

Now lets rephrase the statement accordingly, "You do not believe because you are not an ingrafted branch." In fact, we know that they are a branch that has been cut off.

Now to your question, "How does one become a sheep?" Rephrased, "How does one become an ingrafted branch?"

Read Romans 11 for the answer.

So, one who might not have been an ingrafted branch when Christ was speaking might be grafted back in IF he leaves his unbelief.

So, what Christ very well could be saying in this passage is, "You do not believe because your a branch that has been broken off because of your years of unbelief." But this in no way would be signifying that this branch couldn't be grafted back into the vine if he were to leave his unbelief.

You jest, but actually, it was more of a Calvinistic Jew. Think about it, the Jew thought he was the apart of the CHOSEN and the Gentiles weren't and now God is saying, "I can have mercy on whoever I want and it doesn't depend upon how much you will or run after the law." This is a big change.

First, you need to understand who Paul is refering to when he speaks of the "vessels prepared for destruction." I know you think that is a reference to non-elect individuals, but it IS NOT. Please let me explain and please try to see this from a different perspective (this was difficult for me to see too as a Calvinist but once I did it all made much more sense.)

When Paul says, "What if God chosing to show His wrath and make his power known bore with great patience his objects of wrath fitted for destruction." He is speaking about God's treatment of the Jews. God had put up with them for a very long time, he bore them out, "held out his hands to them..." "sought to gather them under his wings but they were unwilling." And they fitted themselves for destruction as a nation. But why has he put up with the Jews?

2 reasons: (1)From that nation God reserved and perserved those preachers to carry the message, to fulfill His prophecy, and these are the remnant to which he refers later, namely the apostles.

(2) Paul's answer, "What if God did this to make the riches of His glory known to the object of his mercy, prepared in advance for glory."

Who is he talking about? Gentiles. Paul, as an apostle to Gentiles, is arguing they were are "prepared in advance for God's glory." So, what if God has put up with the stubborn rebellious Jews who have fitted themselves for destruction, so that he might show mercy to those he had prepared to ingraft all along. Do you see it? Then he ends by saying even us, he is making it personal now, who he has called, the apostles who are Jews and then the Gentiles. The rest of the following verses go right in line with explaining this "mystery."

(Adam Clarke explains it well see link at bottom)

Exactly. Who was able to come and learn from the Christ while he was on the earth? Any Jew who wanted to? Gentiles? No. Only the apostles had been granted to do this which is why he even says "Have I not chosen you the 12" at the end of his discourse. But really this still doesn't answer my question, "Why can't they come?" I know your going to be frustrated with me but let me explain why it doesn't fully answer the question. If I said to a man standing in a jail cell, "You can't come to me unless I let you." And someone asked why can't he come to you. I could answer, "Because I haven't let him." But that doesn't tell the person what is holding him back from coming. The bars are keeping him away. That is what I'm asking here. What is keeping the people away from coming and believing in Christ? What are the bars holding them back?

Adam Clarke link

[ February 19, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Skandelon ]

 

I thinmk it's the interpretation of that second sentence that is strained, because it redefines sheep as something other than "those who hear my voice". It's more like "those who WILL EVER hear my voice", but that's not what it says. It may have started out small (remember, this was right as Christ was beginning His following), but as those sheep not of the fold came in, and then more people were converted, now beginning to hear His voice, it was not only those first disciples.

I believe the reason Paul uses the analogy of "clay vessels" is to convey a sense of neutrality. Remember, this decision is removed from any "good or evil" (including any "sin") they may have done, or even being "born". Calvinists use it to show that God just created these people for these purposes, and whatever worked out in life as just the means to the end. "God raises the wicked to show us His 'justice' by tormenting them in Hell", some have said. Of course, there is the difference between the supralapsarian double predestinarian, and the infralapsarian single predestinarian, but both use the same proof texts, which seem to lead to the former conclusion.
("before they were born and did good or evil" in the context is referring to the choice of Jacob over Esau to be "the seed" through which Christ would come.
"the "vessels" in the context is likening hardened Israel to Pharaoh, and showing that God could harden them as part of His plan to extend mercy to the spiritual Israelites).

The reason people say "unfair" is because nobody chose to be born in Adam (And Rom.5 suggests no such thing). "it is blameworthy to be born a son of Adam"? The Bible defines condemnation as being for committing sin, not for what God makes someone, and it was God who placed "the lump of clay" in Adam, so you cannot escape the implications that God trapped people who couldn't help but be what He essentially made them. Once again, without disputing this, many, knocking the "unfair" charge, turn to Romans 9, which confirms to the non-Calvinist that this is ultimately what Calvinism is about, though some try to double back and cover up the harder implications.

Now if God "concluded all in sin" (placed them "in Adam"), the question is why: "To have mercy on ALL" (Romans 11:31-2). (not only some, and "leave the rest in their condemnation"). THEN you can truly say that all those who remain condemned do so by "their own choice". Calvinism teaches a "choice" that is not really a choice, but a script.

It's just like "many are called, but few are CHOSEN" (Matt.20:16). Chosen is just a way of saying that they have now been accepted by God through Christ. It doesn't mean He unconditionally "passed over" everyone else, because then once again in this context, God would be choosing based on a type of merit. Yes, actually, among many religious circles, "foolishness, weakness, baseness" IS something they boast of! Because they see the scripture's teachings on becoming like a child, and how the wise and powerful often reject God because of their widsom and power, (plus, for the leaders, people who are not wise and powerful are easier to control), so it has become something of a merit as making them more spiritual, or perhaps Christ's "little flock", etc.

 

Very insightful post Eric

 

How can you be so certain? Couldn't Paul think that it was merciful of God to grant the Gentiles the opportunity to enter the covenant? I'm not asking you to agree with me. Just acknowledge that it's possible and if its not possible then there must be something specific in the text that tells you why that is not a possible rendering.

Plus, you haven't deal with the summary of this discourse when Paul specifically says that God shows mercy to all men (Rom. 11:32).

I'm not making the error here. I want you to listen one more time as I explain how it is not possible for your interpretation of this to be accurate. (Hopefully, by now you can see that I try to objectively view both sides of this issue so don't dismiss this as being me just trying to defend "my side." Please try to understand what I'm explaining.)

You specifically say that the hardened Jews will not be saved. Lost ones might, but not hardened ones. Paul disagrees with you because in Rom. 10 he quotes the OT which speaks of the Jews being given a "spirit of stupor" and being "hardened" then he goes on to quote the passage about the salvation of the Gentiles "provoking them to jealousy" so that they MAY ALSO BELIEVE AND "BE SAVED." He is not just speaking about lost Jews in Romans 10 and 11, he is speaking about the same Jews who have been "given this spirit of stupor" and who have been "hardened."

Read this passage very carefully as I make comments along the way:

Ian, who is "THEM" in reference to in verse 14? Is it the "elect" of verse 7? NO. They have obtained it. Who hasn't obtained it? Those who were blinded or hardened. Paul is clearly speaking about hardened/blinded Jews being saved. Do you deny that? If so, how do you justify that?

{I'm going to pick up with the other issues on another post after we deal with this. We seem to get bogged down when we have too much going. I'm not trying to ignore you at all. I will address the rest of your post, but lets deal with these questions first.}

 

This agrees with what I say-- that we sin because of our nature. Some Calvinists speak of "federal headship" which is the imputation of Adam's "legal guilt" on everyone, apart from any actual sins of their own, and then when you add to this "god determined they were saved or lost before they were yet born and did good or evil", that makes it seem that individual guilt is irrelevant, and people could for all purposes, have started out "innocent", and then God "hardened" them to "show his power" (e.g. Pharaoh), etc. In fact, you earlier told Skandelon "You confuse being LOST with being HARDENED", but it is the Calvinists who have confused them in Romans 9.
Remember, different Calvinists put things different ways, and that is what causes a lot of the confusion in the debate.

And phrasing it this way seems to remove the condemnation from the actual sins (what the people do, knowing it is wrong), to what they are and had no choice to be.

True as long as you understand as you put it above, that we sin because of our nature, rather than God charging each individual with someone elses' sin, as others seem to read into this passage. As I would say, we cannot help be born sinners, but it is what we do once we become aware of this (i.e. repent, or just go on enjoying the sinful state)that we are responsible for.

Still, that can't be removed from being in Adam. It is being in Adam that causes people to fail at keeping the Law, and the Jews were already in that state before God proved it with the Law.

Another way to look at it is that God chose the means that people should be saved by-- faith in Christ and repentance. Christ's plan is so simple, and such "follishness" to the world, that is why more "foolish" are "chosen". People object "that is choosing someone based on sometyhing about them", including "a work", but no more than choosing them because they happen to be "foolish" (which any person can become).

 

Again that phrase also depends upon the perspective you view it. Adam Clarke writes:

You interpret the call to mean the irresistable call, but why couldn't it simply be refering to the call of the gospel? It would make more sense in light of the fact that Paul is not even talking about those being saved and those being condemned. Instead he is talking about those being shown mercy and those being hardened. There is a difference.

I agree that Paul is probably refering to the two groups, not necessarily individuals just like he has been doing throughout the entire discourse. Once again, why is it ok for Calvinists to interpret some passages in a national general since but insist that when speaking of election it must be applied to individuals.

Now, I also believe that nations are made up of individuals and if you notice he says that he has bound all men over to disobiedience. Would that be all individuals? Of course. All have sinned. So the same "all" who have been bound is the same all to which he shows mercy.

He does use the word "may" but still its in regard to what he is going to do to the whole group, not what he may do to some individuals of that group. He could show mercy to all men by offering them the opportunity to enter the covenant through faith, which also makes more since because that is the foundation of the gospel..."go into all the world."

I don't think it is possible because of the things I clearly showed you.

True or false: Those judicially hardened by God refered to by Paul in Romans 9-11 may be saved?

So, you are saying some of the hardened Jews may be elect? That contradicts your earlier statement and proves the point I'm trying to make here.

I think you are trying to dodge the inevitable reality that hardened doesn't mean non-elect and therefore Romans 9 cannot support your intepretation.

Our central argument is, "Does Romans 9 support the Calvinistic beliefs."

In order for Romans 9 to support Calvinism it must be shown that Paul is contrasting elect people with non-elect people. That cannot be established because I have clearly shown that those spoken of as being hardened in Romans 9 may still be saved and therefore cannot be the non-elect of Calvinism's doctrine.

Instead, they are the temporarily hardened Jews being contrasted with the Gentiles who are being shown mercy by being offered entrance into the covenant of faith and the chosen apostles, the firstfruits, reserved by God from Israel to carry the message to the world. There is nothing here that supports the idea that God has selected certain people in the world to believe and be saved while passing by others leaving them in a state of total depravity.

Blessings.

 

That may be so, but what about Cornelious as an example. He was said to have been a God fearing man. He became as such before the gospel was presented to him. In short, the natural revelation and his conscience is what God had used to bring him to the point that he was a God fearer.

Would he have been spared in judgement had he died before Peter's visit? I don't know, I don't think we can know because the scripture doesn't entertain that option for us. It seems to me that these people were justified by their faith in God, regardless of their knowledge of the Christ.

That is not to say they could be saved apart from Christ's work, his blood atonement was needed regardless, but it could have been applied through faith regardless of the persons knowledge of such things.

I'm still studying on this one so bear with me.

No, I think you are confused. Who knows maybe we both are , anyway I'm not saying the flight to Egypt wasn't needed, it was needed in order to save his life, I'm just saying God could have accomplished his purpose through some supernatural means but he didn't. He sent them to Egypt and that solved the problem, nothing else was needed. Understand?

Then you go on to say: "But then you say the means of jealosy, etc. are not needed." No, they are needed in order for these Jews to be provoked. I admit God could have chosen other means, like effectually calling, but because he chose these means why would he have chosen the other as well?

Look back at your example of the flight to Egypt: God wanted to protect Jesus, right? He could have put a forcefield around him and made it impossible for anyone to harm him or He could have had his parents take him to Egypt. But why do both? God puts a forcefield and sends him to Egypt, he chooses a supernatural and humans means, but why would the human means be necessary if the supernatural were in place? Do you see what I mean? Why send a supernaturally protected child to Eygpt to be safe? He is already safe.

You are arguing that God chooses to supernaturally call men irresistably to himself and at the same time claim that he uses Jealousy etc as means to draw them to himself as well. Why enact the human means if indeed the supernatural has gaurenteed results? You make the the human means of "travelling to Egypt" and "Jealousy" seem obsolete because they don't really accomplish anything at all, thus making the text pure nonsense. I hope that make more sense.

I've never stated that all Jews are His sheep. Please go back and read it again because I don't have the energy to try and explain it again right now.

Right, and they cannot be his sheep because he has hardened them in their rebellion for a time. The only ones he was allowing to "come in" were the "first fruits" or the "remnant". These are the people chosen from the Jewish nation, not because of any merit of their own, who God appointed to carry the message of the cross to the rest of the world. These are the first batch of sheep Christ is speaking of who listen and obey. The second group that he refers to who need to be brought in, or ingrafted by faith, are the Gentiles, who will listen (Acts 28:28). Then the Jews, if they leave their unbelief when provoked by jealousy may also be grafted back into the vine.

I gotcha now. Go back to Romans 11 and read carefully and let's see if the broken off branches can believe and be saved:

23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

There are other verses too, but this is enough to show you that those who have been broken off can believe and be grafted back in. How do you deal with this?

I didn't say he was speaking of all Gentiles and all Jews. He is speaking in general about the nations. In general the Gentiles are believing and are thus called "vessels of mercy prepared in advance for glory." In other words Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is saying God has prepared this people to be vessels of his mercy all along. This is the mystery to which Paul refers throughout the scripture.

Just like when Paul later says, "30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law."

Does verse 30 mean all Gentiles have "attained righteousness?" Of course not. But in general, the Gentile nation has attained something that Israel, in general, has not. How? Through faith. Do all Gentiles have faith? Of course not but Paul is speaking in general here, that is quite clear. Can you deny that?

Their evil heart, which you believe they are born with makes them unable to believe, right?

That is what is holding them back?

Then what did Christ mean when he said, "39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."

Ian, notice the word "lest" in this verse. It means "otherwise". If they had not been hardened by God, given a "spirit of stupor" then they could have seen, heard, understood and they may have repented and believed. God didn't want this to happen at this time.

Why? Because he is a mean unforgiving God who just arbitrarily hardens certain people's hearts?

NO!!! They were rebellious to his offers of salvation for centuries (Matt. 23:37) and he sealed them in their rebellion for a time to accomplish His sovereign purposes through them. What purposes?

Would they have killed a man they believed to be the son of God? Of course not. Also, their hardening allowed a path for the ingrafting of the Gentile nation.

Blessings.

 

No, not the only ground, but sufficient enough, and many Reformed argue for the condemnation to Hell of the unborn.

I don't see any such distinction between the hardened, as those it is permanent, and those who it is temporary, Of course, when the national hardening is over, for those who continue to reject the truth it will in effect become permanent. But not because God did not want them to ever be saved.

By the time we become aware of it, we have committed innumerable sins, and this is what we must repent of. The way we are born naturally leads to this. No, we don't repent of what we are, but what we have done.

That is a big misunderstanding; that being born in a "Christian" society gives people more of an "opportunity". But being in a Christian culture a person may also be more likely to rebel against it (especially since he sees the imperfections of it which he sees as "hypocrisy"), or instead, take pride in it as if heritage alone saves him. Just look at the modern "Christianized" world (I look around at people, especially kids around the city today, and say "and these people have 'more chance to be saved' than others in the world? Just tell them about God and repentance and they'll spit at you, because they've heard it all before, and don't want anyone "telling them what to do"!) Those in other cultures hearing it for the first time may be more responsive, because it is new and different; rather than an old established system distorted and watered down by centuries of prominence; which they have long ago already rejected. This is precisely what happened with the Israelites as opposed to the Gentiles, and this was the whole point of Romans 9. God had raised them before others, but now they are hardened, while the others are opened up to. A big proof of this is passages like Matthew 21:31 "the publicans and harlots go into the Kingdom before you". (As for those who have never heard, most non-Calvinists would say if they pray for the true God to show Himself, He will make sure the Gospel gets to him so he can believe. All one has to do is say "lord, be merciful to me, a sinner". Some point to Romans 1 and John 1:9, and suggest that every person has enough light by which they can repent and ask God to be saved. Everyone religion had somewhere in it's pantheon or at least history, an "unknown God" (Acts 17:23) who was believed to be the Most High, and they could ask Him to reveal Himself. Supporting this is the fact that people like Abraham and Job were found "righteous through faith" even though there was no evidence of any special prior revelation to them by God, or even knowledge of God in their lands.