tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post4030768611264909412..comments2023-05-12T10:37:20.308-05:00Comments on Examining Calvinism: Why tell the Jew, Nicodemus, that he must be born again?Richard Coordshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-3876458140462676032007-08-07T09:31:00.000-05:002007-08-07T09:31:00.000-05:00You wrote: which is fine, except that the scriptur...<B>You wrote:</B> which is fine, except that the scriptures teach that all have fallen short and all are in rebellion. "no one seeks God...no not one." we're sinful from conception.<BR/><BR/>…and hence the necessity of Prevenient Grace.<BR/><BR/>A person who persistently rejects God’s grace (refer to Isaiah 65:2), will receive God’s rebuke (Isaiah 6:9-10). I felt that Jeremiah 18:1-13 (also being the context of Romans chapter 9, in terms of God “the Potter”), is a nice passage that puts it all together.<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> paul was transformed rather than hardened.<BR/><BR/>However, the question is <I>when</I> was Paul transformed? I don’t recall that Paul ever taught that he was preemptively made Born Again (or preemptively regenerated).<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> the biggest problem i have with your comments was your silly notion that calvinists claim that "God is taking people and making them into unbelievers." we're all conceived as unbelievers. the only ones who become believers are those who by grace receive faith, like paul the murderer or jacob, the deceiver.<BR/><BR/>Some Calvinists (perhaps the majority) teach that God “raised up” Pharaoh, from the perspective of having <I>created</I> him thusly, in contrast to Arminians who infer that God merely raised him up in the sense of <I>bringing him to power.</I> Your comments sound much more in tune to R.C. Sproul, than your supralapsarian brothers.<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> (or even john the baptist, who was given faith to recognize the Lord while still in the womb...how do arminians believe that little fetus made a conscious choice to believe in order to receive faith?)<BR/><BR/>It’s possible that baby John was given a supernatural, adult’s understanding, but I had never imagined that it was John who was doing the leaping, but rather the Holy Spirit who was upon John, who was doing the leaping.<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> Pharaoh wasn't free to choose not harden his own heart.<BR/><BR/>If we are not free to choose not to harden our own heart, then why did God warn at Psalm 95:8: “<I>Harden not your heart</I>, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: harden not your heart”?<BR/><BR/><B> You wrote:</B> God knew in Matt11:21-24 that He could cause those people to believe by miraculous means (much like the miracles it took to reach paul) but He chose not to (even though, again, you would claim that God wants "every single man to be saved." there were possible realities in which tyre and sidon would have repented and believed...but God sovereignly chose not to enact that reality, and instead chose to ordain our reality in which they were condemned. how is that arminian again?<BR/><BR/>Only Israel (and the neighboring Samaritans) received the grace of experiencing Christ’s earthly ministry, and hence comes great responsibility and great accountability, in which those nations will rise on Judgment Day to testify against those particular cities in Israel. Surely God desired the salvation of the heathen nations, or else why would God have sent them the prophet Jonah, and argued with Jonah about them? Not everyone will receive the amount of grace that Paul had received, in actually getting a personal visit from Jesus, but Paul states that the grace of God that had been shown toward him, did not prove in vain, because he, through God’s power, labored more than all of the other disciples. (1Cor 15:10) So the point is that not all receive the same measure of evangelizing grace, and that we will be held accountable, relative to the measure of grace that we receive, and hence you have a case for greater accountability (compare with Luke 12:48: “but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”)<BR/><BR/>Why does Middle Knowledge not make sense to you? I recall R.C. Sproul having essentially agreed with it (in that God knows all of the what-ifs, all of the contingencies. God knows what could and would occur, from an infinite number of perspectives). I’ll pull his quote later tonight. <BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> the question is whether you believe a gentile could be saved in OT times with no connection to the jews and their (God's) teaching about Himself and His promised Messiah.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could make a case for Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:37), but Jesus told the Samaritan woman that salvation was “from the Jews.” (John 4:22: “for salvation is from the Jews.”)<BR/><BR/>Concerning the point that you raised from John 12:19, “So the Pharisees said to one another, ‘You see that you are not doing any good; look, the [whole] world has gone after Him,’” that was the emotional perspective of the Pharisees, when they considered the impact of Jesus now raising the dead. Obviously, as we agree, the Pharisees were not including themselves. I treat it as a matter of speaking.<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> i also noticed you didn't seem to deal with gal3:16 and paul's teaching that the promises were ultimately to abraham and his "seed" and not "seeds."<BR/><BR/>The seed is Spiritual Israel. The promise of salvation is to those who, like Abraham, believe. That’s why we agreed that the branches were Spiritual Israel, but that the tree/vine was Christ.<BR/><BR/>I’m surprised that you do not have your own Blog. You should make one because I think that you have a lot of biblical knowledge to offer, and to stimulate others toward growth. I, for one, have certainly benefited from your feedback. Perhaps you could at least tell us your first name.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-85393205186532924472007-08-06T20:07:00.000-05:002007-08-06T20:07:00.000-05:00continued: from what i understand of middle knowle...continued: <BR/><BR/>from what i understand of middle knowledge, it doesn't make a ton of sense. God knew in Matt11:21-24 that He could cause those people to believe by miraculous means (much like the miracles it took to reach paul) but He chose not to (even though, again, you would claim that God wants "every single man to be saved." there were possible realities in which tyre and sidon would have repented and believed...but God sovereignly chose not to enact that reality, and instead chose to ordain our reality in which they were condemned. how is that arminian again?<BR/><BR/>...it looks like you're going to have to start another site about examiningcovenanttheology, since we're getting a lot deeper into this than i originally intended. but yes, there is a sense in which the physical jews were God's covenant people (or "His people") - but that number includes "covenant breakers" as well as the remnant of believers. the question is whether you believe a gentile could be saved in OT times with no connection to the jews and their (God's) teaching about Himself and His promised Messiah.<BR/><BR/>(although i really wanted to be a smart-aleck and point out that His own MUST have received Him since john 12:19 tells us that "the whole world followed after Him" and the word "world" must mean every single person. ;-) )<BR/><BR/>i also noticed you didn't seem to deal with gal3:16 and paul's teaching that the promises were ultimately to abraham and his "seed" and not "seeds."<BR/><BR/>BTW, i'm not linking to a site because i don't have one. i'm not trying to be sneaky...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-8371143034463603642007-08-06T19:42:00.000-05:002007-08-06T19:42:00.000-05:00you wrote: "Your first point is that God’s love fo...you wrote: "Your first point is that God’s love for the physical Jews, and desire for the salvation of the physical Jews, would be inconsistent with hardening them. The perfect illustration for this is Jeremiah 18:1-13. As you know, God reached out to Israel, and they spurned His grace, as per Isaiah 65:2. The result is a spurned God, who according to Isaiah 6:9-10, blinds, deafens and hardens them, lest they hear and be saved. That’s the righteous indignation of a spurned God."<BR/><BR/>which is fine, except that the scriptures teach that <B>all</B> have fallen short and <B>all</B> are in rebellion. "no one seeks God...no not one." we're sinful from conception.<BR/><BR/>so God is "spurned" by all...such as by paul when he opposed the spread of the gospel...stephen told him about Jesus but he refused to listen and endorsed murder in order to silence stephen...the murder emboldened him further to attack the churches in damascus and kill or imprison those he caught there. God has doubtlessly hardened many for just that sort of "spurning," but paul was transformed rather than hardened. <BR/><BR/>the biggest problem i have with your comments was your silly notion that calvinists claim that "God is taking people and making them into unbelievers." we're all conceived as unbelievers. the only ones who become believers are those who by grace receive faith, like paul the murderer or jacob, the deceiver. <BR/><BR/>(or even john the baptist, who was given faith to recognize the Lord while still in the womb...how do arminians believe that little fetus made a conscious choice to believe in order to receive faith?)<BR/><BR/>"Another good example is the fact that Pharaoh had hardened his own heart first, which is explicitly stated in the text..."<BR/><BR/>actually the text first states that pharoah WILL NOT let them go until compelled to do so (exod3:19)...yes, multiple hardenings were mentioned later, but it's not as if there was any doubt how things were going to go down. (i.e. pharoah wasn't free to choose not harden his own heart.)<BR/><BR/>from what i understand of middle knowledge, it doesn't make a ton of sense. God knew inAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-67806689546349014712007-08-06T15:49:00.000-05:002007-08-06T15:49:00.000-05:00To add to the last point, I would say that from ma...To add to the last point, I would say that from man's perspective, the future is not fixed, but to an eternal God, who stands independent of time, the future would indeed be fixed, and it would be fixed, from God's perspective, because it would have already happened.<BR/><BR/>Here's an example: Tomorrow, you are going to make certain choices. Does God know what those choices are? Yes, and not only that, but God also knows what choices you "would" make, if God altered the things that will face you tomorrow. If God brings trajedy into your life tomorrow, He knows how you will face it. If He brings victory into your life tomorrow, He knows how you will face it. That's what I mean when I say that God knows every what-if.<BR/><BR/>So by God's perspective, the future is fixed, only because (to God), the future has already happened, and you have already made your choices, that is, from His perspective. In contrast, from your perspective, you have not yet made those choices, because tomorrow has not yet come.<BR/><BR/>This was discussed in the debate book by White & Hunt, in terms of limited Self Determinism vs. Divine Determinism. God could have easily written the "Script of Life," and everyone would be carrying out their parts in the Divine Play. That would involve a fixed future by Divine Determinism. On the other hand, limited Self-Determinism would be an open-script, but not necessarily Open Theism, if God stands independent of time. In other words, what if God dwells in all time, including the present and the future. What if God is right there on your death bed, hopefully far far into the future after a long prosperous life, and He is watching you and listening to you. In that case, you would have made a life-time of choices, that, from God's perspective, have already happened, while from your perspective right now in 2007, have not yet occurred.<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps,<BR/>RichardRichard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-91482573440643824442007-08-06T13:45:00.000-05:002007-08-06T13:45:00.000-05:00Hey Greg,Good to hear from you. I was reading a bo...Hey Greg,<BR/><BR/>Good to hear from you. I was reading a book by Robert Picirilli, in which he described the way that I understood God's providence, which is that God has Middle Knowledge, which means that God knows all of the contingencies, meaning that God knows all of the "what-ifs". In other words, God knows what you could do, and would do, from an infinite number of variations in your environment. Turn to Matthew 11:21-24, where Jesus discusses Tyre and Sidon, in that IF they had seen Jesus' miracles, they would have believe in Jesus and repented and remained to this day. So that is what Arminians mean by Middle Knowledge. Another example is 1Cor 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." The question that is derived from that verse is this: How does God know what Greg Reynolds is able to endure?, if God does not have perfect Middle Knowledge. Therefore, God's knowledge extends beyond what actually does come about, but includes all of the what-ifs. Therefore, that would be on the extreme opposite of Open Theism. That would be <I>Infinite</I> Theism.<BR/><BR/>In terms of God's freedom, I feel like it's deja vu too, because someone else raised that point on another Blog (and maybe that's what you were referencing), and the way that I approached it is from the standpoint of limited self-determinism vs. Hard Determinism. In other words, if God knows the future, then you are 100% correct, in that the future would be fixed. Of that, there is no question. However, the question is whether "who" fixed it? In other words, could it be possible that our eternal God has foreknowledge of a person's future free choice? So, the way I see it, Arminianism is not <I>illogical.</I> In fact, neither is. The question is limited self-Determinism vs. Divine Determinism. (I say "limited" from the standpoint of 1Cor 10:13).Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-59845448345577128822007-08-06T08:27:00.000-05:002007-08-06T08:27:00.000-05:00Richard,This is deja-vu all over again. :) I jus...Richard,<BR/>This is deja-vu all over again. :) I just had a discussion with a good friend Sunday morning regarding this issue of omniscience, free-will, and sovereignty. It is my contention that, when events are seen from God's perspective, man has no choice - even if you believe in the doctrine that everyone is completely free to choose anything at any time. If God knows what the choice will be, then the event could not unfold any other way. In other words, there is really no 'choice'. The individual will always choose that which God knows he will choose, thus eliminating the possibility of any other choice. Obviously my beliefs regarding God's sovereignty are much stronger than the scenario I presented (i.e. it's not what God 'knows will happen' that takes place, but rather what God 'ordains' to happen that takes place), but regardless, in my economy of things, God's omniscience and man's complete freedom to choose cannot co-exist. If man truly has the freedom to choose, then that necessarily implies a limited omniscience which is Open Theism. Does that make sense?<BR/><BR/>GRposttinebraeluxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11056134147121498998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-56918017635109236722007-08-05T08:31:00.000-05:002007-08-05T08:31:00.000-05:00I've done a preliminary writeup for Deuteronomy 14...I've done a preliminary writeup for Deuteronomy 14:2, which summarizes the case that I've laid out:<BR/><BR/>http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Deut14_2.html<BR/><BR/>Adrian Rogers states: “I believe that God wants everybody saved. I believe that ‘whosoever’ is in the Bible, and the same Lord over all, whether you’re a Jew, or whether you’re Greek, <B>whether you’re the chosen race or not the chosen race</B>, whoever you are, wherever you are, if you will call upon the name of the Lord, He will save you....” (Salvation: Romans 10:1-13)Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-54147264350884350112007-08-04T07:33:00.000-05:002007-08-04T07:33:00.000-05:00Thanks Billy and I look forward to your contributi...Thanks Billy and I look forward to your contributions,<BR/><BR/>Let me summarize the discussion thus far:<BR/><BR/>At Deuteronomy 14:2, God spoke about a particular people, and it is the identity of this people, that is currently under discussion:<BR/><BR/><B>"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."</B><BR/><BR/>Question: <I>Who</I> are those people?<BR/><BR/>A) Jews<BR/>B) Jews and Gentiles<BR/>C) Only believing Jews<BR/>D) Only believing Jews and Gentiles<BR/><BR/>I said (A). Anonymous says (D).<BR/><BR/>This is an important question, because it has bearing on other texts, relative to Calvinism & Arminianism.<BR/><BR/>My argument is that God chose the Jews to people His particular chosen people, and that God numerously placed conditions upon the blessings that come from such an election. I named several verses above from the OT where God called His people out of Israel (Exodus), and said that if His people would humble themselves and pray, that He would forgive and heal them (2nd Chronicles 7:13-14). God lamented that His people perish for lack of knowledge of Him. (Hosea 4:6). God said that He reached out all day long to His people, which rejected Him. (Isaiah 65:2; Jeremiah 18:1-13). God then hardened His people. (Isaiah 6:9-10), just as He said that He would do, according to Jeremiah 18:1-13. Then shift gears to the NT. Jesus indicated that He long wanted to gather His people like a hen gathers its chicks, but that they were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37), in that Jesus came into His own, but His own did not receive Him. (John 1:11) However, God is not done with His people. He has partially hardened them for a time (Romans 11:25), in order to include the Gentiles, which would serve to provoke His people to jealousy, that He may show mercy to all (Romans 11:32), and that in the end, namely the conclusion of the Great Tribulation, Jesus would reveal Himself to His people, the Jews, just like how Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, and similarly, in that day, the Jews would bitterly mourn over Jesus, whom they had crucified, according to Zechariah 12:7-14. On that day, all Israel will be saved. (Romans 11:26) <BR/><BR/>As for spiritual Israel, the blessing and the promise are received by those who believe, and hence Gentiles can share in that blessing promised to Abraham by doing like Abraham did, that is, by believing. Together, the fold of believing Israel will be gathered together with the fold of believing Gentiles into one multi-racial flock that is "in Christ," a term which Paul frequently used. You may refer to that as "spiritual Israel," as being branches grafted into the tree, or the vine, of Christ. (John 15:1-2)<BR/><BR/>My contrast with Deut 14:2 and 1Peter 2:9 is that just like in the OT, one was born into election, as a Jew, while in the NT, one is born <I>again</I> into election, as a Christian, such that God desires that everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, to become born into the elect, redeemed race "in Christ," if they will meet His sovereign decree of salvation, according to John 3:16.<BR/><BR/>That's essentially the case that I had laid out.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-50797173082301469012007-08-03T19:10:00.000-05:002007-08-03T19:10:00.000-05:00Okay . . . that is good to know! I suppose that ou...Okay . . . that is good to know! I suppose that our passion for these subjects tends to paint a rather harsh picture of ourselves :)<BR/><BR/>I am glad to know that they are friendly toward you! I take back my comment toward them -- but not some others I have visited, lol.<BR/><BR/>Great Blog. I look forward to visiting you daily.<BR/><BR/>BillyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-49045529543388513222007-08-03T18:08:00.000-05:002007-08-03T18:08:00.000-05:00Hello William,Thanks to you and Ben for visiting. ...Hello William,<BR/><BR/>Thanks to you and Ben for visiting. You've been linked from my site and I look forward to checking your Blogs. <BR/><BR/>However...the two Calvinists here, Greg and "Anonymous" have been really kind enough to offer their feedback, which I've enjoyed tremendously. They are welcome here any time. Yes, there are some Calvinists that fit that description, but these two are <I>certainly</I> not it. One that might meet that definition is the one that recently posted that I was a "swine," along with some other lovely comments :) which I had to delete. When you visit different Blogs, you see some rough individuals, but these two are definitely Christians, and very much welcome here. In fact, if "Anonymous" would take off his cape, I would gladly link his site as well.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by, William and Ben, and I'll check out your Blogs this weekend. <BR/><BR/>Here is the contact page where you have been linked:<BR/><BR/>http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/contact_us.htmlRichard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-50589573530441618352007-08-03T17:12:00.000-05:002007-08-03T17:12:00.000-05:00I understood what you were trying to convey about ...I understood what you were trying to convey about the Jews being pysically elect. Don't let stiff, cold-hearted Calvinists get you down! We know that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4). Let them falsely teach that God has pre-selected some to be saved and not others . . . they will have to give account for what they teach (James 3.1).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-9069478164943167872007-08-03T11:54:00.000-05:002007-08-03T11:54:00.000-05:00Hello,Just starting to check out your site. I lik...Hello,<BR/><BR/>Just starting to check out your site. I like what I see so far. Stop by my blog when you get the chance. I would appreciate any input or interaction. Keep defending the truth.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>Benkangaroodorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172265279507643348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-18467743880604870222007-08-03T06:46:00.000-05:002007-08-03T06:46:00.000-05:00One thing to add, if your assertion at Matthew 1:2...One thing to add, if your assertion at Matthew 1:21 is that "My people" only means 'believing physical Jews,' then what do you do with the host of verses which indicate that God's people are <I>NOT</I> believing in Him? Is that where you create a distinction between <I>physical Jews</I> and <I>spiritual Jews</I>, even though the address is to the very same "His people"/"My people"?<BR/><BR/>Here are some examples:<BR/><BR/>Hosea 4:6: “‘<B>My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge</B>. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.’”<BR/><BR/>Isaiah 65:2: “<B>I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people</B>, who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts.”<BR/><BR/>Jeremiah 18:11: “‘So now then, speak to the <B>men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem</B> saying, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.’”’”<BR/><BR/>2nd Chronicles 7:13-14: “‘If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and <B>My people who are called by My name</B> humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.’”<BR/><BR/>John 1:11: "<B>He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him</B>.” (John 1:11)<BR/><BR/>This is precisely why I maintain that Matthew 1:21 references the whole of physical Israel, believing & unbelieving, and that Jesus had come to save this people, whom He had long desired to gather as a hen gathers its chicks, but it had been unwilling. In light of these things, I do not see how your interpretation of Matthew 1:21 is workable, but I’m listening.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-5834148816641886602007-08-02T18:44:00.000-05:002007-08-02T18:44:00.000-05:00To Anonymous,Relating to John 10:14-16, you wrote:...To Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><B>Relating to John 10:14-16, you wrote:</B> “you are saying that the ‘sheep of this fold,’ in context represent physical israel? physical Israel ‘knows Jesus just as Jesus knows the Father’ and ‘listens to His voice?’ i thought you just said that most of physical Israel ‘squandered their election...rebelled...and were blinded‘? the ‘sheep’ here represent only the remnant of spiritual israel within physical israel...and yes, the other sheep are the gentiles who will come to believe...who will be joined together with the faithful jews into one flock: spiritual israel.”<BR/><BR/>My point is to contrast racial folds with the coming multi-racial flock. Certainly John 10:14 is speaking of believing Jews, that is, <I>believing</I> physical Israel, since it compares their knowledge of Christ with Christ’s knowledge of His Father.<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> “i had never looked at calvin's take on matt 1:21 till you made your implausible assertion and i decided to test your claims. imagine my surprise to find calvin using similar language to mine...and that you were somehow managing to misunderstand us both. maybe reading the fuller context of the quotes you use would aid in your understanding ...particularly when you are quoting someone like calvin, with whom you so readily disagree.”<BR/><BR/>Let’s revisit Calvin’s quote: “Doubtless, by Christ’s people the angel intends the Jews, over whom He was set as Head and King, but as soon after the nations were to be ingrafted into the race of Abraham, this promise of salvation is extended openly to all who gather by faith into the one body of the Church.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. I, p.65, emphasis mine)<BR/><BR/>I maintain that in the first portion of his sentence, he does <I>not</I> intend to include Gentiles. First, wouldn’t it seem strange to say, “Doubtless by Christ’s people the angel intends the Jews” only to really mean Jews <I>and</I> Gentiles? That’s why I cross-referenced Calvin’s usage of the term “Jews” at John 1:11, in which he reiterated the notion of physical Jews, which certainly did not mean believing Jews since the point is that they did not believe in Him. Second, Calvin adds “over whom He was set as Head and King,” which recalls the Romans title for Jesus, being “King of the Jews,” which could hardly be considered to mean “King of the [spiritual] Jews,” or King of the Jews that believe, since the Romans were not theologians. When Calvin adds that “soon after the nations were to be ingrafted,” you can see that now Calvin takes his initial premise of physical Jews and builds upon it, with the ultimate end of spiritual Israel in sight.<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> “but this interpretation raises several issues for you, doesn't it? 1st, if God has been hardening so many jews over the last 2000 years, how do you simultaneously claim that God ‘wants them to come to repentance’ and ‘desires every single person to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?’ 2nd, if God releases His hardening once the full number of gentiles has entered into salvation, and the result is that every single physical jew turns to Christ, what does that say about their ‘free will?’ they won't be ‘free’ to refuse, will they?”<BR/><BR/>Your first point is that God’s love for the physical Jews, and desire for the salvation of the physical Jews, would be inconsistent with hardening them. The perfect illustration for this is Jeremiah 18:1-13. As you know, God reached out to Israel, and they spurned His grace, as per Isaiah 65:2. The result is a spurned God, who according to Isaiah 6:9-10, blinds, deafens and hardens them, lest they hear and be saved. That’s the righteous indignation of a spurned God. Paul described this as a “partial hardening.” The Jews could not come to Christ until the spurned Hardener released His hardening of them, an example of which is found at Acts 2:37 in which some crucifiers became convicted of their sin and asked Peter what to do. It is a mistake to think that God is taking people and making them into unbelievers, but rather God is taking unbelievers, and fashioning them for calamity, just as He said that He would do, according to Jeremiah 18:1-13. Another good example is the fact that Pharaoh had hardened his own heart first, which is explicitly stated in the text, in which afterward, the text explicitly states that God is now the One hardening Pharaoh’s heart. So that’s the general concept with the Hardening. You have God reaching out His hand of love (Isaiah 65:2), with stubborn people resisting that grace, only for a spurned God to say, “Now I will fashion Israel for calamity.” (Jeremiah 18:11) But you, being well educated in this matter, already knew that this is what Arminianism teaches, so why present it as if it is contrary or problematic for Arminianism? In terms of your 2nd point, concerning the prophetic event of “all Israel being saved” (Romans 11:26), relating to their free will, let me reiterate Zechariah 12:7-14, which is basically giving a tremendous illustration of Romans 11:26. You can protest about a contradiction against free will, but that seems to be missing what’s going on in that passage. Jesus introduces Himself to Israel like Joseph introduced himself to his brothers. Was the free will of Joseph’s brothers violated? What if I had stated in advance that all of Joseph brothers would have been saved, does that violate their free will? Of course not. It would have been a prophetic message concerning a future event, and in this case, the pierced Messiah will introduce Himself to His people, Israel, and they mourn over Him, and <I>they</I> being “the tents/clans Judah” and the “house of David.” If you want to spiritualize Romans 11:26, don’t you think that you are going to have to spiritualize Zechariah 12:7-14, and what kind of bizarre path would that take you down? <BR/><BR/>In terms of 1st Peter 2:9, in order for me to know what you’re point is, I will say that the ‘holy chosen race’ is the multi-racial race of those who are <I>in Christ,</I> and that one is born <I>again</I> into that race, and I do not believe that someone can be un-born again, or born again and again and again, so yes, I do believe in the eternal security of the twice-born in Christ, and I add that this is God’s desire for all men, without any secret-will to the contrary. In terms of how this verse relates to Deut 14:2, I indicated in that opening paragraph that one was physically born into the chosen race of Israel, as a Jew, and in the New Covenant, one is born again into the chosen race in Christ. That’s how I contrasted the two. Again, I said that in the OT, one was physically born into election as a Jew, and in the NT, one is spiritually born into election as a Christian. That was the point of this post.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-3661786484379718032007-08-01T23:03:00.000-05:002007-08-01T23:03:00.000-05:00you wrote: "The tree is Christ, and the branches a...you wrote: "The tree is Christ, and the branches are spiritual Israel, consisting of physical Jews (natural branches) and physical Gentiles (wild branches)."<BR/><BR/>fine. <BR/><BR/>for now, let's say the above definition is workable, given that we're dealing with figurative language. <BR/><BR/>you wrote: "...in which the natural branches of physical Israel having been, for a time partially hardened (Romans 11:25), in the end, all Israel will someday be saved (Romans 11:26), when the nation of Israel is converted to Christ."<BR/><BR/>what exactly do you mean here?<BR/><BR/>many, many jews have been hardened over the last 2000 years...and this hardening has resulted in their being cut off from Christ, correct?<BR/>if all of these jews have been cut off, we agree that they refused salvation when they died denying Christ, correct? (like ahab in your previous example...in our language he was a "covenant breaker" and i'd agree would be judged more severely for ignoring the scriptures and the promises of God that came with being born into physical israel...)<BR/><BR/>yes, it does make more sense to me to bounce around in rom11 (just as he did in rom 9: "all israel is not true israel") and conclude that paul is including the gentile believers who are brought in with the remnant of faithful jews when he concludes that "all (spiritual) israel will be saved."<BR/><BR/>OTOH, it is possible that it means that the hardening of those (physical ) jews who are alive at the end of time will be removed, allowing them all to accept Christ. but this interpretation raises several issues for you, doesn't it?<BR/><BR/>1st, if God has been hardening so many jews over the last 2000 years, how do you simultaneously claim that God "wants them to come to repentance" and "desires every single person to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?"<BR/><BR/>2nd, if God releases His hardening once the full number of gentiles has entered into salvation, and the result is that every single physical jew turns to Christ, what does that say about their "free will?" they won't be "free" to refuse, will they?<BR/><BR/>you wrote: "The other sheep are the Gentiles. They do not belong to the fold of the Jews (and for your clarification: physical Israel). The combined “one flock” is in Christ, comprise of physical Jews by birth & spiritual Jews by faith, together with physical Gentiles by birth & spiritual Jews by faith."<BR/><BR/>john10:14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." <BR/> <BR/>"for my clarification:" you are saying that the "sheep of this fold," in context represent physical israel? physical israel "knows Jesus just as Jesus knows the Father" and "listens to His voice?" i thought you just said that most of physical israel "squandered their election...rebelled...and were blinded"?<BR/><BR/>the "sheep" here represent only the remnant of spiritual israel within physical israel...and yes, the other sheep are the gentiles who will come to believe...who will be joined together with the faithful jews into one flock: spiritual israel.<BR/><BR/>you wrote: "In any case, when I say “Jew,” I mean physical Jew, unless I explicitly say “spiritual” Jew. If Calvin was less precise, then that’s his own fault."<BR/><BR/>honestly...<BR/><BR/>i had never looked at calvin's take on matt 1:21 till you made your implausible assertion and i decided to test your claims. imagine my surprise to find calvin using similar language to mine...and that you were somehow managing to misunderstand us both.<BR/><BR/>maybe reading the fuller context of the quotes you use would aid in your understanding...particularly when you are quoting someone like calvin, with whom you so readily disagree.<BR/><BR/>finally, i would still like to hear why you believe the section of 1pet2 below does NOT refer to salvation as it clearly seems to do so. if you think this "holy nation" is being saved, i'd like to understand how you contrast it with deut 14:2 and exod 19:6...will only some of these NT believers in Christ actually be saved? (and we're back to rom9-11, if these same salvation promises were made to the "physical" jews in the OT, on what grounds do you believe God's promises did not fail?) <BR/><BR/>"4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:<BR/> "See, I lay a stone in Zion,<BR/> a chosen and precious cornerstone,<BR/> and the one who trusts in him<BR/> will never be put to shame."7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. <BR/><BR/> 9...you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-81549803403122471102007-08-01T21:43:00.000-05:002007-08-01T21:43:00.000-05:00To Anonymous (in the Secret Service),You wrote: “t...To Anonymous (in the Secret Service),<BR/><BR/>You wrote: “the ‘tree,’ which is also called ‘spiritual israel,’ has been Christ all along.” <BR/><BR/>To sum up your point, therefore, the “tree” = “spiritual Israel” = Christ.<BR/><BR/>Now let’s see what Jesus said at John 15:1: “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.” It seems that your argument would paraphrase Jesus’ words to mean that spiritual Israel is the true vine. So who are you suggesting that the branches are?, spiritual Israel too? To avoid confusion, let me emphatically say that the tree is NOT spiritual Israel, and let me say that Christ is NOT spiritual Israel. The tree is Christ, and the branches are spiritual Israel, consisting of physical Jews (natural branches) and physical Gentiles (wild branches), in which the natural branches of physical Israel having been, for a time partially hardened (Romans 11:25), in the end, all Israel will someday be saved (Romans 11:26), when the nation of Israel is converted to Christ. (Zechariah 12:7-14)<BR/><BR/>You wrote: “while you claim that the promises were made to ‘physical israel,’ scripture refutes you. as paul wrote, ‘The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.’ (gal3:16) it's a shame that you continue to deny it, but the promises have always been given to those ‘in Christ.’”<BR/><BR/>I've never denied that the promise of salvation has always been Christ-centered. What I’m rejecting is the notion that God has zero promises with the physical Jew, that is, the physical seed of Abraham, in which John 1:11 states, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.” Now what am I supposed to believe with that, that Christ came into spiritual Israel?, and spiritual Israel rejected Him? How absurd is that? Hence, that is why I connect Deut 14:2 with John 1:11 and Romans chapter 11:1-32. "His own" were "His people." That was their election. For many, they squandered their election, in which Jesus often desired to gather them together as a hen gathers its chicks, as per Matthew 23:37. God had a specific desire for the Jewish people, which they squandered through rebellion, even when God had reached out to them all day long (Isaiah 65:2), which resulted in them being made blind and hardened lest the see and hear and be saved. (Isaiah 6:9-10) So when you try to spiritualize these many references to physical Jews, it makes a charade of the Bible, does it not?<BR/><BR/>You wrote: “you quote rom9 without attempting….”<BR/><BR/>Don’t mean Romans chapter 11? Was that a typo on your part? My argument was centered around Romans chapter 11, in which physical Israel underwent a “partial hardening” with the end result that someday “all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:25-26; Zechariah 12:7-14) It seems that your argument requires that your understanding of Israel in that chapter, bounces back and forth between physical and spiritual Israel.<BR/><BR/>Regarding my quotation of John 10:16, you wrote: “no. you're stretching to find a difference that isn't there.” <BR/><BR/>Again, the verse states: "I have other sheep (who?), which are not of this fold (then what fold do they belong to?); I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock (what flock?) with one shepherd."<BR/><BR/>The other sheep are the Gentiles. They do not belong to the fold of the Jews (and for your clarification: physical Israel). The combined “one flock” is in Christ, comprise of physical Jews by birth & spiritual Jews by faith, together with physical Gentiles by birth & spiritual Jews by faith.<BR/><BR/>In terms of the quotation of Calvin at Matthew 1:21, you wrote: “in other words, calvin knew it was referring to ‘spiritual israel,’ which was to expand to include the gentile believers.”<BR/><BR/>When Calvin wrote “by Christ’s people the angel intends the Jews,” you have inferred that what Calvin meant was “by Christ’s people the angel intends the [spiritual] Jews.” I inferred that when Calvin said “undoubtedly…Jews,” that he meant physical Jews. Part of the reason why is because of his views on John 1:11, in which he comments: “I prefer the view of those who refer to Christ’s coming to the Jews only.” (Crossway Classic Commentary on John, p.21) I’m not an apologist for John Calvin. Rather, I was quoting him as a hostile witness, and if he intended a spiritualized reference to the Jews, then he could have been more explicit and said “spiritual.” In any case, when I say “Jew,” I mean physical Jew, unless I explicitly say “spiritual” Jew. If Calvin was less precise, then that’s his own fault.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-41398506955422670142007-08-01T17:35:00.000-05:002007-08-01T17:35:00.000-05:00you wrote: "How could you even propose such unbibl...you wrote: "How could you even propose such unbiblical nonsense? The fact is that the tree is Christ Himself..."<BR/><BR/>i wrote: "true israel as discussed in rom9-11 IS the body of Christ...going all the way back."<BR/><BR/>your lack of skill at reading comprehension continues to boggle my mind.<BR/><BR/>the "tree," which is also called "spiritual israel," has been Christ all along. that's why the NT tells us that abraham "rejoiced that he would see (Jesus') day. He saw it and was glad," (john8) - that isaiah "saw His glory and spoke of Him" (john 12) and that moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt." (heb11)<BR/><BR/>heb 11 tells us while they had to wait for Christ to be revealed perfectly, salvation has always been through faith...and that faith has ultimately been "in Christ."<BR/><BR/>while you claim that the promises were made to "physical israel," scripture refutes you. as paul wrote, "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ." (gal3:16) it's a shame that you continue to deny it, but the promises have always been given to those "in Christ." <BR/><BR/>deut 14:2 and exod 19:6 are parallel in meaning to 1pet2:9. if you deny that God set apart (spiritual) israel in those verses for salvation, then i have no idea how you interpret peter's words to the NT believers.<BR/><BR/>you quote rom9 without attempting to answer its fundamental question: if israel (physically in your understanding) was set apart as "holy" and as "God's possession," then how could His promises not have failed when so many in physical israel were so clearly cut off from Christ? that is paul's whole point in directing our attention to the remnant of physical israel who also belonged to spiritual israel and thus did receive the promises... <BR/><BR/>you wrote: "John 10:14: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."<BR/><BR/>Jesus did not say: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will join this fold with one shepherd."<BR/><BR/>Do you see the difference?"<BR/><BR/>no. you're stretching to find a difference that isn't there. <BR/><BR/>you wrote: "For instance, a 5-Point Calvinist, such as James White, typically views Matthew 1:21 as referring to spiritual Israel, whereas a 4-Pointer, such as John Calvin, interpreted it as being physical Israel."<BR/><BR/>speaking of dishonesty and stretching things, calvin the "4-pointer" was right in line with what i've been saying (and most likely what james white is saying as well.):<BR/><BR/>"By Christ’s people the angel unquestionably means the Jews, to whom he was appointed as Head and King; but as the Gentiles were shortly afterwards to be ingrafted into the stock of Abraham, (Romans 11:17,) this promise of salvation is extended indiscriminately to all who are incorporated by faith in the “one body” (1 Corinthians 12:20) of the Church."<BR/><BR/>-taken from Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 by John Calvin<BR/><BR/>in other words, calvin knew it was referring to "spiritual israel," which was to expand to include the gentile believers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-19887290296260675842007-08-01T15:48:00.000-05:002007-08-01T15:48:00.000-05:00Hey Greg,I'm not trying to split hairs with Identi...Hey Greg,<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to split hairs with Identification vs. Adoption, but I need to be precise in how I describe it, because the matter of physical Israel and spiritual Israel can, if misinterpreted, inadvertantly cause statements applying to the one type, be carried over to the other.<BR/><BR/>For instance, a 5-Point Calvinist, such as James White, typically views Matthew 1:21 as referring to spiritual Israel, whereas a 4-Pointer, such as John Calvin, interpreted it as being physical Israel.<BR/><BR/>In this discussion, there was a divergence of opinion between Anonymous and I, concerning who God's people are intended to mean, in the words of Deut 14:2, which states: "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." <BR/><BR/>Who are those people? Is it physical Israel or spiritual Israel? Naturally, I point to a verse like Romans 11:28-29, to argue for an interpretation of physical Israel: "From the standpoint of the gospel they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Going back to Matthew 1:21, I agree with the 4-Pointer, and cite John 1:11 as a basis: "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him." So when I read Romans chapter 11, concerning the "natural branches," and the discussion of God's people, Deuteronomy 14:2 comes to mind.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-66674505122900501932007-08-01T06:10:00.000-05:002007-08-01T06:10:00.000-05:00Hey Greg,1) In terms of wicked Jew Ahab vs. a wick...Hey Greg,<BR/><BR/>1) In terms of wicked Jew Ahab vs. a wicked Gentile Hanan, their ultimate end was no different, that being, Hell. However Ahab had an election, as a Jew, which Hanan did not have, and therefore Ahab will likely be held more guilty.<BR/><BR/>2) Would you agree that the mention of an “inward” and “outward” Jew refers to physical and spiritual Israel? To be a physical, outward Jew requires being born of the seed of Abraham, through Isaac. To be a spiritual, inward Jew requires being like Abraham, and believing in God. This deals with identification, rather than adoption. Paul was explicit when he referred to our adoption being “in Christ,” and never, to my knowledge, described Christians as being adopted “in Israel.” Merging the two would mean that Christ = Israel, and I’ve never read where Paul made that point. Consider the example of Nathanael. Jesus called him a true Jew, “an Israelite indeed.” (John 1: 47) Nathanael was born a Jew, of the seed of Abraham, through Isaac, but what made him a true Jew, an inward Jew, or an Israelite indeed, was the fact that he was a believer, and in whom through was no trickery. He was both a physical Jew and spiritual Jew. He was a physical Jew by blood-line, and a spiritual Jew by behavior. Such true Jews who died before Christ, died in Abraham, rather than in Christ and went to Sheol (Luke 16:19-31), while awaiting Christ’s resurrection, at which time they were gathered “in Christ,” in whom they now have access to the Father, in which we too, upon death, pass Sheol and go straight to heaven. That’s some of the difference between being in Abraham and being in Christ. We have a lot more in Christ, namely, we have access to the Father. This is why I say that being a spiritual Jew is identification whereas being in Christ is adoption. I have no desire to be adopted in Israel, which is so far inferior to being adopted in Christ, through whom I have one access to the Father. Abraham did not have such access (as per Luke 16:19-31), when he was in Sheol, waiting for Christ. In Christ, we have so much more than what Adam, Noah or Abraham ever had.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-56098020546380196212007-07-28T08:42:00.000-05:002007-07-28T08:42:00.000-05:00Richard,Two questions: 1: is there a difference be...Richard,<BR/>Two questions: <BR/>1: is there a difference between 'believing' Jews and 'non-believing' Jews? In other words, were Jews like Ahab & Saul any different, practically, from Gentiles?<BR/><BR/>2: what do you gather from Rom. 2: 28, 29 where Paul labors the point that not all 'Jews' are Jews and that all Christians are 'Jews'. Doesn't that imply adoption into some sort of familial group?<BR/><BR/>GRposttinebraeluxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11056134147121498998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-22714934453432546422007-07-27T17:47:00.000-05:002007-07-27T17:47:00.000-05:00Hey Greg,One thing that I might add, is that, yes,...Hey Greg,<BR/><BR/>One thing that I might add, is that, yes, as Gentiles we were separated from the commonwealth of Israel, for salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22), but more significantly, and precisely to Paul's central point, we were cut off from <I>God</I>, and the cross is what brings us near to Him, and hence Eph 2:16. If you make the purpose of the cross, something that brings us near to the commonwealth of Israel, then Paul's point is lost, because otherwise, all you needed, then, is to belong to the commonwealth of Israel, and you'd be fine, and yet surely there is no salvation in merely being a Jew, as John the Baptist reiterated: "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." (Luke 3:8)Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-83900596693701405182007-07-27T14:12:00.000-05:002007-07-27T14:12:00.000-05:00Hey Greg,Here is what I gather:1) According to Eph...Hey Greg,<BR/><BR/>Here is what I gather:<BR/><BR/>1) According to Eph 2:16, what we are brought near to is "God," which states: "...reconcile them both [Jew and Gentile] in one body to God through the cross."<BR/><BR/>2) The "one body" is the body of Christ.<BR/><BR/>3) Our citizenship is of heaven: "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philippians 3:20)<BR/><BR/>So to suggest that we, as Christians, are grafted into Israel, ultimately equates the tree of Romans 11 as Israel, when yet the tree is Christ Himself. Even more odd is that such an interpretation would mean that physical Israel is grafted into the tree of spiritual Israel. The reality is that we are grafted into the Body of Christ as the Bride of Christ, having become one spirit with Him. (1Cor 6:17) The only reason why Abraham is my spiritual father is because Abraham is the father of all those who believe. This is not to say that, as a Christian, I am in Abraham. The debate of true Israel and false Israel is not a new one. For instance, In John chapter 1, you have Nathanael, whom Jesus address as a "true Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile." This recalls the guile of Jacob. When you believe God, you demonstrate the characteristic of a true son of Abraham, but that should not be pressed to mean that we are now in Abraham, when Paul unceasingly described our place as being “in Christ,” with Romans 8:1 being an example of many, and if you want to know what it means to be “in Christ,” know what it means for Noah to be in that Ark. (1Peter3:20-21). Salvation was "from the Jews," according to Jesus at John 4:22, to show that that's who God spoke to, and delivered His promises to, while not suggesting that only Jews can be saved. A better example is John 10:14 where Jesus points to those who are not of the Jewish fold:<BR/><BR/>John 10:14: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."<BR/><BR/>Jesus did <I>not</I> say: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will join this fold with one shepherd."<BR/><BR/>Do you see the difference?Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-36236756592845192202007-07-27T08:03:00.000-05:002007-07-27T08:03:00.000-05:00Good morrow Richard.Now this is a topic which I've...Good morrow Richard.<BR/>Now this is a topic which I've not studied to any great length, but do believe this may be my next great interest. Rom. 11 is really a difficult passage for me because of other passages which seem to indicate that 'true' Israel is not a 'bloodline', but rather of faith (i.e. Rom. 2:28,29). And, although Anonymous' comments are a bit terse for my taste, he/she does seem to have a point regarding Eph. 2; it seems that the logical rendering of the passage is that the gentiles have 'become near' to that which immediately preceded this verse - namely the 'commonwealth of Israel' and 'covenants of promise'. Yet, Rom. 11 is very clear about there being a 'bloodline' distinction. 'Twill be great fodder for our brainstorm SS class this Sunday. <BR/>GRposttinebraeluxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11056134147121498998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-43006599373754351372007-07-26T17:56:00.000-05:002007-07-26T17:56:00.000-05:00Anonymous,Let's focus in on that one issue: Are Ch...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Let's focus in on that one issue: Are Christians grafted into Israel? You based your argument on Ephesians 2:11-13, so let's look at it, and then we'll also look at Romans chapter 11.<BR/><BR/>Ephesians 2:11-13 states: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called 'Uncircumcision' by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."<BR/><BR/><B>You wrote:</B> "<I>What</I> have we been 'brought near to through the blood of Christ' according to eph2? <I>inclusion as citizens of israel</I> AND, as a result, recipients of the promises made thereto."<BR/><BR/>The "what" is God Himself. We have been brought near to God, just as v.16 states: "...reconcile them both [Jew and Gentile] in one body <B>to God</B> through the cross." (Eph 2:16)<BR/><BR/>However, you are paraphrasing it to mean that we were brought near to Israel, as if the verse had said: "...you who formerly were far off have been brought near [to Israel] by the blood of Christ."<BR/><BR/>How could you even propose such unbiblical nonsense? The fact is that the tree is Christ Himself, and the branches are Israel and the Gentiles, which at Romans 11, Paul describes Israel as the "natural branches" and contrasts them with the Gentiles who are "wild branches." (Romans 11:7-24)<BR/><BR/>Here is Romans 11, in the King James Version: "I say then, <B>Hath God cast away his people?</B> God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? <B>Israel hath not obtained</B> that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11 I say then, <B>Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles</B>, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if <B>the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world</B>, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being <B>a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them</B>, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 <B>Boast not against the branches.</B> But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; <B>because of unbelief they were broken off</B>, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for <B>God is able to graff them in again</B>. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that <B>blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles</B> be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 <B>For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.</B> <BR/>33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."<BR/><BR/>In v.1, Paul asks, "Has God cast away His people?" This refers to <I>God's people</I> of Deuteronomy 14:2. <BR/><BR/>I repeat, the wild branches of the Gentiles are not grafted into the natural branches of Israel. Rather, the wild branches are grafted into Christ only to stilumate to jealousy, the natural braches, after a partial hardening, that they may ultimately be grafted back into Christ.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-86510915606882280422007-07-25T23:26:00.000-05:002007-07-25T23:26:00.000-05:00you wrote: "However, if they had not been murdered...you wrote: "However, if they had not been murdered, by the mixing of their offspring through inter-marriage, would have become “one people,” of Abrahamic physical descent..."<BR/><BR/>AND<BR/><BR/>"Through intermarriage, they would INDEED have become “one people,” and that’s what God did NOT want to have happen..."<BR/><BR/>you seem confused, as you are speaking in the future tense in the second quote for no apparent reason. <BR/><BR/>they WERE married in the second instance. they DID have children. yet they were NOT "one people of abrahamic descent."<BR/><BR/>you wrote: "By your understanding, Sarah could have died childless, and it would have had the same effect, as per your understanding of spiritual descendents being as numerous as the stars of the sky."<BR/><BR/>first, i'm a calvinist and i believe God is sovereign. things could never have happened differently than they did.<BR/><BR/>more to the point, your response is a false dichotomy, if not flat out dishonest. i conceded that the immediate application was physical, so it's deceptive to suggest that "sarah could have be childless." the issue is that the NT tells us that being a "descendant of abraham " is a benefit of being joined to Christ...so is there more to the promise than the physical results described in the OT or not?<BR/><BR/>hosea 11:1 says, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." hosea is, in fact, referring to the exodus. that this is true in no way invalidates or conflicts with the (higher) truth that hosea 11:1 is about Jesus. (matt2:15)<BR/><BR/>you wrote: "Where is your contextual support for a ‘spiritualized’ assertion?"<BR/><BR/>i already gave it. God was calling a people to Himself...and declaring His intention to be their God. this is the very definition of spiritual intimacy. does God make promises based on their being "His" people or just physical descent? this shouldn't be difficult.<BR/><BR/>you wrote: "Refer to Malachi 1:1-3, where Israel is distinguished from Edom, as being the children of Jacob vs. the children of Esau."<BR/><BR/>i'm obviously familiar with rom 9. why don't i just go there first...<BR/><BR/>as i've been saying, it's never been by birth alone.<BR/><BR/>you wrote: "Grafted into what??? We are NOT grafted into Israel. Rather, Gentile Christians are grafted into the Body of Christ, as are Jewish Christians."<BR/><BR/>there is ONE tree (or body) of believers. there has always been only ONE. if you want to argue that believing jews like anna, simeon, peter, john the baptist or mary were EVER cut off from their "natural" tree, i'd like to see your support. they had faith to see the kingdom right when Jesus came. they were part of the remnant of jews who believed God and accepted their messiah immediately...the only reason many of the jews were ever "cut off" was for unbelief.<BR/><BR/>"24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, <I>the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.</I><BR/><BR/>haven't you read the scriptures? "<B>Moses regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ</B> as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt." (heb11:26) heb 11 is all about OT <B>believers in Christ,</B> even though it's true they didn't understand fully.<BR/><BR/>true israel as discussed in rom9-11 IS the body of Christ...going all the way back.<BR/><BR/>you wrote: "Nowhere, and I repeat, NOWHERE, does the Bible say that we are grafted into Abraham."<BR/><BR/>i'm glad you didn't add a promise to do something ridiculous if this weren't true. ;)<BR/><BR/><B>eph2:11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, <I>excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise</I>, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ."</B><BR/><BR/>what have we been "brought near to through the blood of Christ" according to eph2? inclusion as citizens of israel AND, as a result, recipients of the promises made thereto.<BR/><BR/>eph 2 likewise teaches that there has only ever been ONE building, with a foundation of both OT prophets and NT apostles and the chief cornerstone has always been Christ.<BR/><BR/>since i'm stealing heavily - and i'm tired and don't need to repeat every point - here's a good essay:<BR/><BR/>http://credenda.org/issues/7-4similitudes.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com