Open question about Romans 9-11

[Sean]

That's enough for now Sean, now could you please answer my questions directly:

11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His election would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.


24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.


1. What was the call in verse 11 based on? Something in the man? Foreseen in the man?

2. Are the calls spoken of in these two verses universal or specific?

Thanks...

1. Doesn't seem to be, though it does mention works, and you know faith is not a work. So faith can't be ruled out.

2. I don't understand the difference between universal and specific. If it's universal that people are sinners, then each specific person that exists are sinners. I'm not sure why you are trying to make me guess at your position. Why don't you explain your position. I'm not going to guess at it.

[Sean]

Paul seems to say that one must turn to the Lord so the veil can be taken away.

1. So blinded ones, can of their own volition, turn to God? That does not make sense. Perhaps it is God who first turns them. Besides, are you suggesting that if God wanted to keep a man blind to spiritual things He couldn't. Remember in Romans 9+10 it is God that is doing the blinding.

Just because it does not make sense to you, doesn't make it wrong. I'm wondering, since Paul stated the order of events, what makes you distrust Paul (maybe Calvinistic presuppositions)?

God blinded them to "break them off the tree", that doesn't mean they can't be grafted back on by their faith. And why would God have to blind people who need a special work of grace to even believe anyway? I thought people were born in a blind spiritual condition (according to the Calvinist).

I thought the non-elect were prepared for destruction? If both elect and non-elect are saved then who is not saved?

2. That's why I was speaking of a people group. God can graft in Jews again if he so pleases. That does not mean the the individuals of Paul's day, that were prepared for destruction, would be grafted in. It could and probably does include future Jewish generations.

Romans 11 specifically mentions those who were "broken off" could be "grafted in again". The context of Romans 9-11 is speaking about those Jews who were not believing in the Messiah because they stumbled over the unbelief of the Messiah (Rom 9:32-33). There were no "future Jews" who stumbled because they were not alive yet to stumble! This is in fact speaking about the very same ones who were prepared for destruction. It is on the very heart and mind of Paul. People of his own flesh were cut off. The question on everyone's mind was why and is it permenant. Paul said no, they could be converted and placed back on as one saved. I would encourage you to read Romans 9-11 over and over with these points in mind.

What good would it be to provoke someone who is not elect? I thought this was all God's choice. What good would it do to provoke someone who is "dead" to the point of salvation? I could understand maybe praying to God but provoke the man? Why do that if man makes no choice?

3. Again, we are speaking of a people group. Not all the Jews of Paul's day or future days were/are resistant. And God can use both external means (jealousy) and internal means (instigation of the Holy Spirit) to gather in the elect.

Paul doesn't mention God using these means, Paul mentions himself using the fact of Gentile salvation to provoke the non-elect Jews to salvation. You have not answered the question. If Paul thought like a Calvinist, he would have never made such a comment because no one can know who the elect are, it's up to God to bring them to faith, right?

[seer]

11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His election would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.


24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.


1. What was the call in verse 11 based on? Something in the man? Foreseen in the man?

2. Are the calls spoken of in these two verses universal or specific?


1. Doesn't seem to be, though it does mention works, and you know faith is not a work. So faith can't be ruled out.

2. I don't understand the difference between universal and specific. If it's universal that people are sinners, then each specific person that exists are sinners. I'm not sure why you are trying to make me guess at your position. Why don't you explain your position. I'm not going to guess at it.

1. The texts says - done ANYTHING good or bad. I assume that biblical faith is a good thing. I think this passage makes it clear Sean that it is God's unilateral choice and not based on anything foreseen in us.

2. Universal in the sense that the call goes out to the elect and none elect alike. It seems pretty plain that this call is specific - for the elect only.

[seer]

Just because it does not make sense to you, doesn't make it wrong. I'm wondering, since Paul stated the order of events, what makes you distrust Paul (maybe Calvinistic presuppositions)?

God blinded them to "break them off the tree", that doesn't mean they can't be grafted back on by their faith. And why would God have to blind people who need a special work of grace to even believe anyway? I thought people were born in a blind spiritual condition (according to the Calvinist).

I did say Sean that they could be grafted back in if God so wished. And really, it is silly to suggest that a man can repent while spiritually blind. And how does God blind? By witholding - "In Thy Light we see light."

Romans 11 specifically mentions those who were "broken off" could be "grafted in again". The context of Romans 9-11 is speaking about those Jews who were not believing in the Messiah because they stumbled over the unbelief of the Messiah (Rom 9:32-33). There were no "future Jews" who stumbled because they were not alive yet to stumble! This is in fact speaking about the very same ones who were prepared for destruction. It is on the very heart and mind of Paul. People of his own flesh were cut off. The question on everyone's mind was why and is it permenant. Paul said no, they could be converted and placed back on as one saved. I would encourage you to read Romans 9-11 over and over with these points in mind.

You are taking a leap Sean. "Branches" may not have the limited meaning you are speaking of. But again, I have no problem with God grafting back in anyone He so chooses. As far as being "prepared for destruction" perhaps Paul should have said "prepared for possible destruction." And the reason I think Paul is speaking of present and future Jews is because of verses like in 11:26 - speaking of a future event when the hardening will stop for Israel - when the full number of gentiles has come in.

Paul doesn't mention God using these means, Paul mentions himself using the fact of Gentile salvation to provoke the non-elect Jews to salvation. You have not answered the question. If Paul thought like a Calvinist, he would have never made such a comment because no one can know who the elect are, it's up to God to bring them to faith, right?

Again Sean, God can and does use both external and internal means to draw in the elect. I don't see why this is hard for you to grasp...

[Troy]

Seer, you have not given much of a reason to believe you grasp what Sean is saying. For the sake of dialogue, could you please be a little more direct in your responses?

[Sean]

1. The texts says - done ANYTHING good or bad. I assume that biblical faith is a good thing. I think this passage makes it clear Sean that it is God's unilateral choice and not based on anything foreseen in us.

2. Universal in the sense that the call goes out to the elect and none elect alike. It seems pretty plain that this call is specific - for the elect only.

Like I said in the first post. If your view is that God calls only the elect to salvation then why does Paul say that the Jews who are not part of the elect can be saved?

I did say Sean that they could be grafted back in if God so wished. And really, it is silly to suggest that a man can repent while spiritually blind. And how does God blind?

It does not say "If God wished" The text says:
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
It says if man does not continue in unbelief then God is able. It's God's power but man's choice.

And really, it is silly to suggest that a man can repent while spiritually blind. And how does God blind?

It depends what you mean by spiritually blind. Are we talking about the birth condition of people or a secondary blinding for a specific cause?

You are taking a leap Sean. "Branches" may not have the limited meaning you are speaking of.

I'm simply following the context. You are the one who is importing "future Jew" to try an substantiate your view. I'm speaking of the Jews at that time who were not elect yet able to be saved. These are the people I'm concerned about:

Rom 11:14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Their rejection is speaking of no other than the very same people mentioned in Romans 9:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. 6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.

How is it that these Jews referred to as not God's true descendants become saved? Paul says in Rom 11:14 that their rejection means riches for the world but their acceptance is life from the dead.

But again, I have no problem with God grafting back in anyone He so chooses. As far as being "prepared for destruction" perhaps Paul should have said "prepared for possible destruction." And the reason I think Paul is speaking of present and future Jews is because of verses like in 11:26 - speaking of a future event when the hardening will stop for Israel - when the full number of gentiles has come in.

Paul said the ones cut off are the non-elect. You have not answered my original point. How can the non-elect come to salvation if they are not the elect chosen by God for salvation? Are not the elect chosen from the foundation of the world?

Romans 11:26 does not speak of a time when the hardening will stop. It says a partial hardening has occured until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and in this way all Isreal will be saved.

In other words "this way" that all Israel will be saved is by the Jew's invy over Gentile salvation. If in fact the Gentiles stop coming to salvation the hardened Jews will not longer be motivated to salvation at all! Otherwise there would be no need to cause invy in the first place. That's the point. Paul is not saying all Jews will be saved, He's saying all true Israel will be saved (all believers). But all this is beside the point of this thread. The point is: How do non-elect Jews come to salvation? Saying God can graft them back on is not an answer to my question. Unless you are agreeing that non-elect people can indeed be grafted into salvation, which disproves the notion that election is unchangable.

Again Sean, God can and does use both external and internal means to draw in the elect. I don't see why this is hard for you to grasp...

Re-read your quote above. My point of this thread (again) is to ask, how is it that the non-elect can come to salvation?

[seer]

Like I said in the first post. If your view is that God calls only the elect to salvation then why does Paul say that the Jews who are not part of the elect can be saved?

Sean, it is clear from the texts I quoted that the call of God is based on His choice and nothing in us. Does Paul believe that God can call or elect others who are presently blinded. Yes, then they would become vessels of mercy. We are all "children of wrath" by nature. But it is God who changes our status from vessels of wrath to vessels of mercy. As far as being grafted in again by faith (faith being man's choice) that would clearly be a contradiction of the Roman's nine passages I quoted which again plainly states that the choice is God's. Not based on "anything" that we have done.

So as I see it there is really only one question here - how does one go from being a vessel of wrath to a vessel of mercy. And I think the passages in chapter nine plainly states how that happens.

That's all the time I have for now... Jim

[Sean]

Sean, it is clear from the texts I quoted that the call of God is based on His choice and nothing in us. Does Paul believe that God can call or elect others who are presently blinded. Yes, then they would become vessels of mercy. We are all "children of wrath" by nature. But it is God who changes our status from vessels of wrath to vessels of mercy. As far as being grafted in again by faith (faith being man's choice) that would clearly be a contradiction of the Roman's nine passages I quoted which again plainly states that the choice is God's. Not based on "anything" that we have done.

So as I see it there is really only one question here - how does one go from being a vessel of wrath to a vessel of mercy. And I think the passages in chapter nine plainly states how that happens.

So instead of exegesis, you seem to read your view of Romans 9 into Romans 11 without following the flow of thought. In other words, your answer actually contradicts itself.

Here is what I mean. You said:

So as I see it there is really only one question here - how does one go from being a vessel of wrath to a vessel of mercy. And I think the passages in chapter nine plainly states how that happens.

Among other things, chapter nine says:

Rom 9:11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls

It seems clear that according to the Calvinist interpretation only the elect are regenerated and shown mercy. Yet in Romans 11 we see Paul's desire for the rest of Israel (the non-elect part) is that they be saved. Paul reveals that his attempts to arouse them may save some of them. But most importantly, these are the people of whom Paul says:

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

It's the non-elect Paul says can be saved. Yet, as I stated above, a Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9:11 says only the "elect" are brought to salvation. Your answer isn't an answer. Romans 9 does not tell us that a vessel of wrath changes to vessel of mercy. It says:

Romans 9:20 Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

It seems that the elect ("the called") are the ones that God makes into vessels of honor. So again, how does Paul then say the non-elect can also be saved? Romans 9 seems to tell us that the non-elect are prepared for destruction. Is God unsure of who the elect are? I thought this was known from the foundation of the world? If both elect and non-elect are saved, then who is not saved?

[seer]

Sean, it is clear from the texts I quoted that the call of God is based on His choice and nothing in us. Does Paul believe that God can call or elect others who are presently blinded. Yes, then they would become vessels of mercy. We are all "children of wrath" by nature. But it is God who changes our status from vessels of wrath to vessels of mercy. As far as being grafted in again by faith (faith being man's choice) that would clearly be a contradiction of the Roman's nine passages I quoted which again plainly states that the choice is God's. Not based on "anything" that we have done.

So as I see it there is really only one question here - how does one go from being a vessel of wrath to a vessel of mercy. And I think the passages in chapter nine plainly states how that happens.

So instead of exegesis, you seem to read your view of Romans 9 into Romans 11 without following the flow of thought. In other words, your answer actually contradicts itself.

Here is what I mean. You said:

So as I see it there is really only one question here - how does one go from being a vessel of wrath to a vessel of mercy. And I think the passages in chapter nine plainly states how that happens.

Among other things, chapter nine says:

Rom 9:11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls

It seems clear that according to the Calvinist interpretation only the elect are regenerated and shown mercy. Yet in Romans 11 we see Paul's desire for the rest of Israel (the non-elect part) is that they be saved. Paul reveals that his attempts to arouse them may save some of them. But most importantly, these are the people of whom Paul says:

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

It's the non-elect Paul says can be saved. Yet, as I stated above, a Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9:11 says only the "elect" are brought to salvation. Your answer isn't an answer. Romans 9 does not tell us that a vessel of wrath changes to vessel of mercy. It says:

Romans 9:20 Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

It seems that the elect ("the called") are the ones that God makes into vessels of honor. So again, how does Paul then say the non-elect can also be saved? Romans 9 seems to tell us that the non-elect are prepared for destruction. Is God unsure of who the elect are? I thought this was known from the foundation of the world? If both elect and non-elect are saved, then who is not saved?

Again Sean, it really is not that difficult. Paul says that God can graft them in, then they would become the elect. Like I said, we are all children or objects or wrath by nature, headed for destruction. And of course God knows who the elect are - I doubt that Paul did though.


And I will ask again Sean,

"for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls."

"and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Is this call universal? Does it go out to all men or only a specific group of men?

[Sean]

Again Sean, it really is not that difficult. Paul says that God can graft them in, then they would become the elect.

Interesting. They can become elect, if they believe. A choice make.

Like I said, we are all children or objects or wrath by nature, headed for destruction. And of course God knows who the elect are - I doubt that Paul did though.

Hmmm. Your reading Ephesians 2 into this. If we were all children of wrath then why does Paul say God made two groups: vessels of wrath and vessels of honor. That is what I'm wondering about. I'm not asking about Ephesians 2.

And I will ask again Sean,

"for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls."

"and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Is this call universal? Does it go out to all men or only a specific group of men?

You don't seem to be following my argument. If Romans 9 is a call only to the elect then why does Paul try to save some of the non-elect?

In an earlier post you said:

Universal in the sense that the call goes out to the elect and none elect alike. It seems pretty plain that this call is specific - for the elect only.

Then you said:

Again Sean, it really is not that difficult. Paul says that God can graft them in, then they would become the elect.

So Jim. Who is this call for? You can't have your cake and eat it too. I thought God only saves the elect (the "Jacob" types, the only ones God calls, remember?)