Romans 11 and election: Can the non-elect be saved?

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I still think the question: So are you (cygnusx1) saying all Israel is elect, even apart from Christ. And if so then Israel doesn't need Christ?
Well, I can point out from the position CygnusX1 represents, this is quite an ambiguous set of statements.

Election is God's choice to set them "in Christ" in the sense of a promise, which is fulfilled in time. That would deprive the relevance of the question: of course they're elect when apart from Christ, and they're brought into Christ more and more as God fulfills more and more aspects of His promise.

So the question itself doesn't seem to have any force. It'd be obvious, Israel must need Christ if the promise can only be fulfilled in/by Christ.
The reason for this question is this. If one supposes (as John Hagee seems to believe) that Israel doesn't need to believe Christ to be saved, then why does faith in Jesus matter?
Hagee's a dispensationalist of a pretty strange stripe. I wouldn't even begin to imply Hagee's views on anyone who doesn't explicitly say they embrace them.
This is a theologically relevant question, since there are indeed living Christians who hold this view.
Maybe, but not among living Christians who don't hold this view.
Several times I've been told by CygnusX1 my position is based on the fact that I'm "Arminian". Yet the reformers were originally amillennial, so this charge is clearly unfounded, yet this is ok?
I wouldn't know under what circumstances. There are aspects of "observed faith constitutes justification" that are not born out among the reformers. But I'm not certain where the demarcation line is. I do know that the Reformed theologians actually revulse at the idea and consider it, not simply Arminian, but semi-Pelagian.
I've taken the time to answer questions about the texts of Romans 3:3 & Romans 11:28. I feel the texts I pointed out (from Moses, Peter & Paul) make a strong case and they have yet to be delt with by CygnusX1.

Yet CygnusX1 has repeatedly questioned me as to Israel being completely cut off or replaced or divorced. It is clear that CygnusX1 does not understand my position since I have repeatedly stated that God has not removed them all, or cut them all off. But the assertions continue.
OK, it appears your position is that "Israel" is a general group. Which is fine. But it's clearly not what Paul appeals to at Romans 11:1. Paul states it, "all Israel will be saved" (11:25). His argument in favor of his viewpoint is 11:28, "They are enemies of the gospel", yet Paul is a friend of the gospel at the start of Romans 11. So: not the same group.
I've already give my explanation to this point on page one, post #8.
Granted that start & end of Romans 11 are not the same group, "Israel", and that the "cut off" isn't the same word even, what are we to make of what is the same word? "chosen/elect"
 
Upvote 0

Arc

Lover of the Truth
Jun 29, 2003
294
10
50
St. Louis Metro Area, IL
Visit site
✟7,994.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK, it appears your position is that "Israel" is a general group. Which is fine. But it's clearly not what Paul appeals to at Romans 11:1. Paul states it, "all Israel will be saved" (11:25). His argument in favor of his viewpoint is 11:28, "They are enemies of the gospel", yet Paul is a friend of the gospel at the start of Romans 11. So: not the same group.

But "all Israel will be saved" has already been defined as:
1. Those who (at some point) come to Christ.
2. Not all ethnic progeny of Abraham. (God never intended to save every single Jew as cygnusx1 said)

So, as I already stated, Paul could be consistently stating this point throughout. "They are enemies" are the part of Israel who (as cygnusx1 said) God never intended to save and the statment: "But concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." refers to just that, the part of Israel who are elect. (more on this below)

Otherwise you would have to admit that all these years there have been Jews who have had promises to them and God's unconditional love toward them but they still are blinded and have died in their sins. It seems a bit shallow. What good did the promises do for the past 1900 years?

Granted that start & end of Romans 11 are not the same group, "Israel", and that the "cut off" isn't the same word even, what are we to make of what is the same word? "chosen/elect"

Not sure what you are getting at. If all Israel is elect, then what was Paul saying in Romans 11:7?

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

Going back to an earlier post:
If God's word hasn't failed because God never intended to save every single Jew (Romans 9)

Scripture tells us Israel is an elect nation , you say Paul didn't say it , but I tell you he was thinking it right from Romans 1 onwards especially Romans 9 and Romans 11

cygnusx1, Can you explain what this means, especially in light of Romans 11:7? I read through your post, but don't see how this makes your point.

It seems that you are saying that Israel as a nation, though outside of Christ still have promises to them going back to Abraham but believing Jews today, being part of the church, are something different? Then Romans 11 is understood by you to be the Israel that is presently outside of Christ being converted on a national scale. This would be why you don't like the idea of the promises only applying to the church, because if that were the case then modern day Israel would be left out.

Israel remains elect inspite of hardening , inspite of the time of the Gentiles , inspite of being punished , inspite of being several times banished from the holy land , God remains her faithful loving husband !

Yet this has been the question I have been asking all along. In either case of election, national or individual, Paul is still making the case that although he, nor or his people whom God foreknew were rejected (Rom 11:1). Paul then states there is a remnant chosen by grace (Rom 11:5). Then Paul states: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened

Even if you argue the harness is "in part" and is removed after the full number of the Gentiles come in, I'm still failing to grasp why Paul considers this group of hardened Israel something other than elect. Doesn't matter if you mean elect for salvation or national election. According to Paul these people are not elect. Yet later he says All Israel will be saved.

I still want to know how non-elect Israel later get saved. Pointing to Romans 11:28 doesn't remove this problem, even if I accept your view of it. How did the Israel of Romans 11:7 later become the elect for the sake of their fathers?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Feb 3, 2011
550
23
✟8,272.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Rom. 11:11,12, "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

12.Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Verse 11 tells very clearly that they have not fallen completely. It says certainly not. It also explains the reason, salvation for the gentiles. Then Paul explains that they will be grafted in again. Into Jesus Christ, that is.

The church has never replaced Gods purposes and calling concerning the Jewish people as a nation. Prophecy concerning them will be fulfilled, and further proves that they have not been permanently rejected. This was an error that started early, and many continue in it still. Christendom has much to account for too, just look at it.
 
Upvote 0

Arc

Lover of the Truth
Jun 29, 2003
294
10
50
St. Louis Metro Area, IL
Visit site
✟7,994.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Rom. 11:11,12, "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

12.Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Verse 11 tells very clearly that they have not fallen completely. It says certainly not. It also explains the reason, salvation for the gentiles. Then Paul explains that they will be grafted in again. Into Jesus Christ, that is.

I agree. My concern is who "they" are. "They" who stumbled but not beyond recovery are those very ones whom Paul said were something "other than" the elect:

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:


“ God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

9 And David says:


“ Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not!

So, have "they" (who are not counted among the elect of Israel) stumbled that they should fall? No! Interesting.

Yet Paul just prior to this counts himself as one of those within Israel who have obtained. So we have "believing Israel" & "unbelieving Israel". Israel with some of her branches broken off.

My question is why does Paul first count this part of Israel as non-elect if they will indeed be saved?

I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.

Especially if they are counted as elect in verse 28? (As cygnusx1 & heymikey80 contend) If the whole nation is elect, they why did Paul say there were some of Israel who were not of the elect who "obtained it"? "It" seems to be referring to salvation, since that is exactly what Paul states he is trying to achieve in verse 14.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Feb 3, 2011
550
23
✟8,272.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You make a great point. Even though Paul was sent to take the gospel to the gentiles, he never lost concern for his own countrymen, the Jews. There is yet prophecy concerning them, that will be fulfilled. It will be through Jesus Christ, that they will find deliverance.

The point you make gives good evidence that we preach and witness to all. We consider nobody unreachable. We need to let God decide who is His, and who is not, and just go and do as He told us to. Preach the gospel to every creature, instead of condemning the majority. None of us will be sucessfully condemning others at judgement, but will all answer for our own lives. We should be focusing on that.

The doctrinal debates probably will not be solved, they been going on a long time. Peter said 'Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

Amen to that.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But "all Israel will be saved" has already been defined as:
1. Those who (at some point) come to Christ.
2. Not all ethnic progeny of Abraham. (God never intended to save every single Jew as cygnusx1 said)
I appreciate that you or the discussion might have already defined it in this way, but that doesn't mean that the Scripture is satisfied with every view that embraces these two elements.
So, as I already stated, Paul could be consistently stating this point throughout. "They are enemies" are the part of Israel who (as cygnusx1 said) God never intended to save and the statment: "But concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." refers to just that, the part of Israel who are elect. (more on this below)
See, now that would be Paul talking out two sides of his mouth.

First he says "all Israel", meaning "all of somebody". Either he means that or he doesn't.

Next he says "they".

Twice.

Now I don't know about you, but to me, "they" points to the preceding noun (sometimes suppressing supporting citations). Two "they"s in parallel point back to the same group of people. "they" are enemies, and the same "they" are chosen.

As I've said before, it's quite an interesting verse.
Otherwise you would have to admit that all these years there have been Jews who have had promises to them and God's unconditional love toward them but they still are blinded and have died in their sins. It seems a bit shallow. What good did the promises do for the past 1900 years?
Who's to say this is the conclusion? No, I don't have to admit this. The interesting part about this is that God is bigger than a shallow view of God's interests.
Not sure what you are getting at. If all Israel is elect, then what was Paul saying in Romans 11:7?
Simply that there is indeed an elect Israel, and that it need not be converted instantly. All Israel can readily be converted when God so chooses, in the sense that God means in Romans 11:28, without demanding an inconsistency with 11:7. It does require looking for theologies that are consistent with both Scripture passages. I'm not saying it's simple. I'm saying it's certainly possible.
 
Upvote 0

Arc

Lover of the Truth
Jun 29, 2003
294
10
50
St. Louis Metro Area, IL
Visit site
✟7,994.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate that you or the discussion might have already defined it in this way, but that doesn't mean that the Scripture is satisfied with every view that embraces these two elements.

See, now that would be Paul talking out two sides of his mouth.

First he says "all Israel", meaning "all of somebody". Either he means that or he doesn't.

Next he says "they".

Twice.

Now I don't know about you, but to me, "they" points to the preceding noun (sometimes suppressing supporting citations). Two "they"s in parallel point back to the same group of people. "they" are enemies, and the same "they" are chosen.

Paul also said: For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. So when Paul says "they" he indeed means Israel as a group. Yet this group can be subdivided: enemies & the election. It doesn't have to mean that, but it is not inconsistent with Paul's splitting of Israel in Romans 9:6 & Galatians 4. It also removes the difficulty of Romans 11:7.

Then I had said: "If all Israel is elect, then what was Paul saying in Romans 11:7?"

And you replied:

Simply that there is indeed an elect Israel, and that it need not be converted instantly. All Israel can readily be converted when God so chooses, in the sense that God means in Romans 11:28, without demanding an inconsistency with 11:7. It does require looking for theologies that are consistent with both Scripture passages. I'm not saying it's simple. I'm saying it's certainly possible.

I would submit that this is not what a straightforward reading of Romans 11 states or implies. We will just have to agree to disagree. But anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion! Peace bro! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
Feb 3, 2011
550
23
✟8,272.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Again, you make a great point, and one that can not be dismissed, though there are always some that will. Pauls witness, and Pauls experiences with his own people, the Jews, should give proof enough to anyone, that we never stop presenting the gospel, to anyone.

Who gave him forty stripes, minus one, five times? Who beat and stoned him, and left him for dead? These are the very ones, he was speaking of provoking to jealousy, and save some of them.

Christendom is one pathetic body, today. All that most want to do, today, is condemn any who disagrees with their particular doctrine. Proof is in forums such as this one. And many wonder why we have the moral and spiritual conditions we have today. Many churches, denominations, are allowing membership, even clergy, to do things that these people they quote, Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, John, and others, would clearly condemn for heresy and apostasy. And they would condemn their doctrines, and rituals, as the same. Perilous times.

You made a point, using scripture, that no one can show to be false, regardless. Just do what Christ commanded, preach the gospel, make disciples, to/of everyone.
 
Upvote 0

heterodoxical

Active Member
May 8, 2011
361
6
dallas tx
✟530.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
God existed before all of creation, right?

Thus God existed before TIME began.

Thus there is no PRE to God's perspective.

He saw/sees, beginning middle and end as one, since there is no "linearality" outside of time.

The use of PREDESTINATION was an anthropomorphic attempt to explain that God knows already who is His. Not that he chose. The word is reversed as apply to us, and applied to Him instead.

Theology isn't important, but faith expressing itself thru love. gal 5:6


I posted this question in the Romans 9 thread but it just turned into an eschatology debate. I'm just wanting to focus on soteriology.

The question is, can someone with a Reformed view of soteriology explain the text of Romans 11 to me? It seems Paul is stating that some of the non-elect can be saved. Read on:

Paul states that Israel is divided into believers and non-believers:

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

So first off, Paul emphatically states that God has not cast off all Israel since Paul is an Israelite himself and then concludes that God has not cast of those whom He foreknew, so there is indeed a remnant of Israel who like Paul are believers "according to the election of grace"

No problem so far. But that's about to change. Reading on:

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:

“ God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

9 And David says:

“ Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”

Two parts of Israel, one part elect, the rest are blinded. But what will become of the blinded part. You know, the part that is not elect?

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Very interesting. Paul is holding out hope for this non-elect part of hardened Israel. Read on:

13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

How can one read this another way? Paul begins by stating some of Israel are elect and foreknown by God and have not stumbled, but others of Israel were not believers, not elect and were blinded by God and cast off. But Paul then states that he is hoping to provoke them to jealousy and save some of them!

How can Paul really believe he can rouse and save some of the non-elect, blinded by God Jews? Can a non-elect person be saved?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lee52

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2011
1,951
79
Normal, Illinois
✟2,645.00
Faith
Wesleyan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I posted this question in the Romans 9 thread but it just turned into an eschatology debate. I'm just wanting to focus on soteriology.

The question is, can someone with a Reformed view of soteriology explain the text of Romans 11 to me? It seems Paul is stating that some of the non-elect can be saved. Read on:

Paul states that Israel is divided into believers and non-believers:

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

So first off, Paul emphatically states that God has not cast off all Israel since Paul is an Israelite himself and then concludes that God has not cast of those whom He foreknew, so there is indeed a remnant of Israel who like Paul are believers "according to the election of grace"

No problem so far. But that's about to change. Reading on:

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:

“ God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

9 And David says:

“ Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”

Two parts of Israel, one part elect, the rest are blinded. But what will become of the blinded part. You know, the part that is not elect?

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Very interesting. Paul is holding out hope for this non-elect part of hardened Israel. Read on:

13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

How can one read this another way? Paul begins by stating some of Israel are elect and foreknown by God and have not stumbled, but others of Israel were not believers, not elect and were blinded by God and cast off. But Paul then states that he is hoping to provoke them to jealousy and save some of them!

How can Paul really believe he can rouse and save some of the non-elect, blinded by God Jews? Can a non-elect person be saved?

Arc,
Without reading the entire thread, I will first post this in answer to your question:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ROMANS 5:12-21 NIV

What we have to understand is that in the beginning, God wanted to have a relationship with humans, His creation. He, GOD, wanted, wants, continuously will want, that relationship to be voluntary. One man, ADAM, brought sin and humankind's downfall to sin. ONE man, JESUS, brought the perfect reconciliation for that sin. Those who misunderstand the words "elect and chosen" misunderstand or ignore Romans 5. We were ALL chosen to be the elect since the dawn of time, but God has always wanted it to be a voluntary relationship. We were made in His image. One must come to grips with man's free will in that voluntary relationship with our Creator, GOD. THAT is not salvation by works. It IS salvation in picking up a free gift from GOD. GOD offers that free gift to anyone that picks it up and possesses it. We are free to not pick it up and walk on by. We are free to not pick it up and circle it and ponder it, and study it, and still not pick it up. We are free to pick it up and possess it and then decide it is just not for us and set it down and walk away from it. (Though I cannot fathom doing so). When GOD hardened Pharoah's heart, HE did so out of HIS desire to bring Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, to further HIS kingdom and set the stage for Jesus' coming. The JEWS were being taught to place their trust fully in HIM. When GOD hardens anyone's heart, it is for HIS purpose and it is not up to us to decide whether or not that is just. But, HE does so, to save people through that hardening of a heart that was already puffed up and antagonistic to GOD by their own free will. Go back and study those whom GOD hardened their hearts. GOD did not harden the hearts of NICE people, and HE did not do so, just because HE could. Somebody always got blessed, saved, delivered, etc. from that hardening of a heart.

Humans do not come into the LIGHT because they prefer evil and the spoils that evil gives them. It is a choice.

"Choose you this day whom you shall serve, ..............., as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD". My choice.

Be blessed,
Lee52
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Paul also said: For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. So when Paul says "they" he indeed means Israel as a group. Yet this group can be subdivided: enemies & the election.
As I see the problem, the group can't be subdivided by using the pronoun, "they". It's not, "one part is an enemy for your sake, while another part is beloved on account of the fathers." Greek has a great pronoun for this, it's "tis". It's not used here. It's "they are enemies [right now, present tense in contrast with the future tense "shall be saved" stated earlier] for your sake; but they are beloved [right now] on account of the fathers." It's only one sentence. Paul would be forced to refer to two different groups with the same pronoun. It's not a consistent grammatical use.
It doesn't have to mean that, but it is not inconsistent with Paul's splitting of Israel in Romans 9:6 & Galatians 4. It also removes the difficulty of Romans 11:7.
It's inconsistent because it makes Paul use pronouns inconsistently.
I would submit that this is not what a straightforward reading of Romans 11 states or implies. We will just have to agree to disagree.
It will support a straightforward reading of Romans 11, too.

I don't think "the elect"/"ones chosen" in Romans 11:7 specifically refers to their theological election to salvation. These people are theologically elect, but they're "chosen" in an additional sense. I think it simply means Paul's saying, "God picked these guys: and the rest were hardened."

In other words, God chooses every mercy and hardening without regard to human will or action. Romans 9's individual election is broader than soteriology. It isn't narrower. It rather throws a serious suspicion on the idea of "judicial hardening", where God does harden using a regard for prior human will.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DonnyT

Newbie
Sep 1, 2009
559
13
✟8,272.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I posted this question in the Romans 9 thread but it just turned into an eschatology debate. I'm just wanting to focus on soteriology.

The question is, can someone with a Reformed view of soteriology explain the text of Romans 11 to me? It seems Paul is stating that some of the non-elect can be saved. Read on:

Paul states that Israel is divided into believers and non-believers:

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

So first off, Paul emphatically states that God has not cast off all Israel since Paul is an Israelite himself and then concludes that God has not cast of those whom He foreknew, so there is indeed a remnant of Israel who like Paul are believers "according to the election of grace"

No problem so far. But that's about to change. Reading on:

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:

“ God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

9 And David says:

“ Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”

Two parts of Israel, one part elect, the rest are blinded. But what will become of the blinded part. You know, the part that is not elect?

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Very interesting. Paul is holding out hope for this non-elect part of hardened Israel. Read on:

13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

How can one read this another way? Paul begins by stating some of Israel are elect and foreknown by God and have not stumbled, but others of Israel were not believers, not elect and were blinded by God and cast off. But Paul then states that he is hoping to provoke them to jealousy and save some of them!

How can Paul really believe he can rouse and save some of the non-elect, blinded by God Jews? Can a non-elect person be saved?

Very simple. Those who Paul are provoking to jealousy and who will be saved are also the elect. Paul just doesn't know it.
 
Upvote 0

Lee52

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2011
1,951
79
Normal, Illinois
✟2,645.00
Faith
Wesleyan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
An observation and a question:

It has been my experience that there are those who, even though professing Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, tend to be a bit arrogant and maintain a certain amount of faux humility in discussions with other, "lesser Christians". Perhaps, lesser Christian is not quite accurate, perhaps, not as smart, not as intellectual, not as knowledgeable, would better describe the feeling, the thoughts that I get from them. This attitude, this aura, is something that just does not sit well in my spirit. I am disconcerted by this.

To those of us that seek to follow Christ Jesus' example of loving, accepting, and forgiving others as Christ loved, accepted, and forgave us, it is an issue.

What I would ask each one that reads this, as born-again Christians, are you one of those I have described above in your theology, your doctrines, or are you loving, accepting and forgiving as Christ was/is to you?

If you do not recognize that I could be talking about you, I probably am talking about you. If, on the other hand, you take a moment to examine your approach to brothers and sisters in Christ that you disagree with on some issues of doctine, then perhaps, I am definitely NOT talking about you.

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.


Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12 NIV
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
anyone who accepts Christ, the King of Israel, are the elect Israel, remnant gathered.

anyone who doesn't accept Christ, are not the elect Israel, regardless of geneology in either case as bloodlines dosn't matter to God.

There it is.
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:28-29

So election clearly isn't a result of accepting the Gospel.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T

Two Edged Sword

Guest
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:28-29

So election clearly isn't a result of accepting the Gospel.

Exactly and throughly wrong.

The enemies of the gospel are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. To call them "elect" is incredibly offensive to the Body of Christ.

To suggest that the enemies of the gospel are "the elect" is inane to the maximum error.

The remnant out of Israel are the "elect".

(Rom 9:27) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

They are those who respond to the call of the Gospel that God promised to Israel are the ONLY Remnant saved.

Those who do NOT respond to the Gospel are NOT Israel;

(Rom 9:6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Exactly and throughly wrong.

The enemies of the gospel are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. To call them "elect" is incredibly offensive to the Body of Christ.

To suggest that the enemies of the gospel are "the elect" is inane to the maximum error.
Tell it to Paul.

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. Rom 11:28

It's what Paul says. My view is that Paul's right, and not viewpoints trying to compromise what Paul said.

This is Paul's view of enemy-elect:

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
Rom 11:25-27

Those who do not respond to a Gospel presentation are twofold:
  • Those who never accept the Gospel
  • Those who later accept the Gospel
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Tell it to Paul.

Paul is telling it to you.

(Gal 1:6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

(Gal 1:7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

I am an Israelite who accepted Christ. Now I am a true Israelite "elect". If you understand and accept that, then we are at peace.

But if you are trying to give all antichrist jews the title of "elect" just because you think some of them 'might' became Christians, is NOT what Paul teaches, that is a false concept and an offense to the Body of Christ.

As Paul says, even in the scripture you quoted, as I also said, only those who heed the call of the gospel are Israel saved. Only they are the elect.

Peace

Election is not conferred because one believes, election is the intent of God to bring a person to belief. God knows whom He has chosen, and they most certainly will be brought to belief, in His timing, and as He has ordained.
 
Upvote 0

Arc

Lover of the Truth
Jun 29, 2003
294
10
50
St. Louis Metro Area, IL
Visit site
✟7,994.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Very simple. Those who Paul are provoking to jealousy and who will be saved are also the elect. Paul just doesn't know it.

This is not what Paul said. If Paul is mistaken about this, then what else might he be mistaken about concerning the doctrine of election?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arc

Lover of the Truth
Jun 29, 2003
294
10
50
St. Louis Metro Area, IL
Visit site
✟7,994.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I see the problem, the group can't be subdivided by using the pronoun, "they". It's not, "one part is an enemy for your sake, while another part is beloved on account of the fathers." Greek has a great pronoun for this, it's "tis". It's not used here. It's "they are enemies [right now, present tense in contrast with the future tense "shall be saved" stated earlier] for your sake; but they are beloved [right now] on account of the fathers." It's only one sentence. Paul would be forced to refer to two different groups with the same pronoun. It's not a consistent grammatical use.

Yet Paul speaks this way in Romans 11:7 Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Who were the "rest" who "were blinded"? Not the elect but Israel. Yet the "elect" who have "obtained it" are in fact Israel as well (as Paul just explained in verses 1-5). This is not fundamentally different from what is said in verse 28. Otherwise you have the problem of Israel being elect in verse 28 and not elect in verse 7. How can it be that Israel, even in unbelief, ever be considered non-elect unless it means not saved (as the context does in fact go on to state).

It will support a straightforward reading of Romans 11, too.

I don't think "the elect"/"ones chosen" in Romans 11:7 specifically refers to their theological election to salvation. These people are theologically elect, but they're "chosen" in an additional sense. I think it simply means Paul's saying, "God picked these guys: and the rest were hardened."

In other words, God chooses every mercy and hardening without regard to human will or action. Romans 9's individual election is broader than soteriology. It isn't narrower. It rather throws a serious suspicion on the idea of "judicial hardening", where God does harden using a regard for prior human will.

You don't think Romans 11:7 refers to election to salvation even though verse 5&6 read: 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Also, Paul admits he's trying to save the hardened/blinded ones in verse 14 and sums up the discussion of these lost souls by saying: "all Israel will be saved"
followed by this quote:

“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”


The whole discourse is about Israel and salvation.

I am, however, still considering my position on verse 28. Even if I reach the conclusion that "they" are one in the same group, this does not answer the problem I raised when I started this topic about Romans 11:7 and Paul's use of election there.

It's interesting to note that Wayne Grudem's book Systematic Theology uses Romans 11:7 as a proof text for election unto salvation. Here is the quote from page 685 of my edition:

Regarding the results of the fact that God failed to choose all for salvation, Paul says, "The elect obtained it, but the rest were blinded" (Rom 11:7)
 
Upvote 0