Passages challenging Calvinism

Hammster said:

Yes, of course. And while that may affect the communion, it doesn’t affect the union.

And the Shepherd goes after the sheep.

Click to expand...

So, say I'm a Gentile (branch from the wild olive tree). Once I become a believer (God grafting me into the cultivated olive tree because I stand by faith), is it possible for me to become an unbeliever (being cut off from the cultivated tree)?

Thanks for the reply, but instead of explaining what Romans 11 actually teaches, you pitted other Scriptures against it. I think we need to believe all Scripture, and I'm confident you do as well. Because of this, I believe the Scriptures you brought up. Let's look at them...

Hammster said:

You cannot stop being an adopted son of the Father.

Or,

The Father gives sheep to His Son. If Jesus were to lose even one, He would not be a Good Shepherd, and it would cause a rift in the Godhead.

Click to expand...

You didn't actually give a reference, but my guess is that you're referring to John 10:26-29. Jesus says that unbelievers are not of His sheep and that believers are. No one can snatch His sheep out of His hand; Jesus will make sure His part is done in guarding believers. I agree with this.

Hammster said:

Or

If you want to stick to Romans,

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”
— Romans 4:1-8

No sin of the justified will be counted against him.

Click to expand...

These passages show that those who rely on their works for salvation will not be forgiven but those who believe, having faith. I agree with this as well.

Combining these passages with Romans 11, we find that Jesus will prevent others from stealing His people away from Him (John 10) and will forgive believers of their sins (Romans 4), and yet those who were grafted in because they "stand by faith" (Romans 11:20) may not be spared (v. 21) if they don't continue in the faith (v. 22).

How do you interpret Romans 11?

Hammster said:

What I am showing you is that there are clear passages that show that because of our relationship with God (Father/child, Shepherd/sheep) that we cannot be cut off. I’m not pitting any scripture against any other. There are clear teachings in scripture that tell us that God is our Father (Lord, teach us to pray). There are clear teachings in scripture that show that we cannot out-sin God’s grace (Romans 4-6). So even in the book of Romans, there is clear evidence that while our communion can be affected, our union cannot. This is why I’ve emphasized that we cannot start with chapter 11.

Click to expand...

I agree that God is our Father and that His grace forgives the sins of believers. But will believers who fail to continue in faith be forgiven? When you read Romans 11, that God "may not spare" those whom He grafted in and who "stand by faith," cutting them off (vv. 19-22, NKJV), how do you interpret it? Thanks!

I'm going to warn you in advance that this post is large. However, I'm not expecting you to reply to anything except the few questions at the end, so don't feel overwhelmed.

Hammster said:

Believers won’t fail. Let’s look at the first part of chapter 11 (since you want to ignore everything else I’ve said ).

Click to expand...

I haven't ignored the other Scriptures you cited; I explained why I agree with them. On the contrary, you are the one who has ignored the passage I brought up, Romans 11:19-22. You didn't touch on the chapter at all (other than saying "we cannot start with chapter 11") until your last post. And even then, it did not so much as mention anything from verses 19-22.

I don't want to come across sounding rude. I genuinely want to know what verses 19-22 teaches if it isn't that God may "cut off" (NKJV) those who "stand by faith." I keep trying to think of alternatives to my interpretation but can't think of any. Your hesitance to provide an alternative only strengthens my suspicions that it refutes Calvinism.

Hammster said:

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
— Romans 11:2-6

Why is there still a remnant? By man’s choice, or by God’s choice?

Click to expand...

Despite being upset that you haven't gotten into Romans 11 earlier, I'm glad you're doing it now. We're told in verse 2 that "God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew." (Backing up to verse 1, we see "His people" is Israel.) Because more Gentiles were becoming Christians at the time, many Jews thought Paul's theology contradicted God's emphasis on Israel. Answering this is the main subject of chapters 9, 10, and 11. Paul explains that while not all of the nation of Israel is saved, this has always been the case. Elijah was upset at one time too, feeling he was the only one left following God, but was told He has reserved 7,000 followers.

As for your question, it's definitely God's choice, or more specifically "God's gracious choice," as your version says, that there's a remnant saved. Paul contrasts this with man's works. No man can earn salvation from sins on his own. That being said, the passage doesn't say whether God's gracious choice is arbitrary or based upon our faith. Paul does address this elsewhere in chapters 9 and 11, however. See below for examples.

Hammster said:

What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
— Romans 11:7

Click to expand...

This says Israel hasn't obtained what it's seeking (approval from God), while the chosen ones have. But why did Israel not obtained it? Paul answers this question at the beginning of this three-chapter section of Romans: "Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone" (9:30-33).

Consistent with chapter 9, chapter 11 also says faith is what separates those chosen from those rejected (11:20). Those who "stand by faith" are in the cultivated olive tree--even Gentile branches previously from the wild olive tree--while all unbelievers are broken off. However, God "may not spare" the believing branches (v. 21) unless they "continue in His goodness" (v. 22).

It seems to me you're avoiding what I've been saying on Romans 11:16-22, but I don't want to assume the worst. In case I've been at fault and not specific enough, could you answer the specific questions below? If you ignore them or stop replying, it's clear to me you don't want to address the passage. If you do answer them, on the other hand, then you'll be helping me out a lot. Here they are:

1. Are the branches in Romans 11:16-22 individuals or groups?
2. If groups, what do the two trees represent?
3. What causes branches to be in the cultivated olive tree as opposed to the wild olive tree?
4. Can branches grafted into the cultivated tree be cut off?
5. Can branches cut off from the cultivated tree be grafted in again?

These are my questions for Romans 11:16-22. I'd greatly appreciate it if you can provide answers to them. Thanks!

Hammster said:

I’m not actually avoiding anything, though I suppose I can see why you’d say this. From my point of view, you want to promote synergism/Arminianism. And in my experience, this means that context will be avoided or ignored.

Click to expand...

I prefer the term non-Calvinists. While being a non-Calvinist may cause you to lump me with Arminians in the Calvinist-Arminian paradigm, I don't agree with 100% of Arminianism. As far as synergism goes, I do believe there is a response that determines if God chooses you, but not in some sense making God's work insufficient. Man's works can't earn salvation.

Hammster said:

Kilk1 said:

This says Israel hasn't obtained what it's seeking (approval from God), while the chosen ones have. But why did Israel not obtained it? Paul answers this question at the beginning of this three-chapter section of Romans: "Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone" (9:30-33).

Click to expand...

Here’s an example. You act as if Paul answered the question from chapter 11 here. To believe that I’d have to assume that he gave an answer in chapter 30 to a question he doesn’t even ask in chapter 11. You pretended he asked.

Click to expand...

Because of the erroneous mention of "chapter 30," I'm not 100% certain what you were saying, but I'm going to guess this much: I shouldn't act as though Paul asks a question in chapter 11 and answers it in chapter 9. If this is what you're saying, it's actually my point! Let's back up. In the post before your last, you asked this about Romans 11:2-6:

Hammster said:

Why is there still a remnant? By man’s choice, or by God’s choice?

Click to expand...

While the answer is obviously "God's choice," you were claiming this somehow shows that "Believers won’t fail." The only way this makes sense is if God chooses people to have faith rather than chooses them because of their faith, something verses 2-6 doesn't address. To point out that Paul neither endorses nor condemns this in verses 2-6 (but addresses the question elsewhere), I said this:

Kilk1 said:

As for your question, it's definitely God's choice, or more specifically "God's gracious choice," as your version says, that there's a remnant saved. Paul contrasts this with man's works. No man can earn salvation from sins on his own. That being said, the passage doesn't say whether God's gracious choice is arbitrary or based upon our faith. Paul does address this elsewhere in chapters 9 and 11, however. See below for examples.

Click to expand...

I then referenced Romans 9:30-33, a passage which does ask and answer the question of why many Jews aren't in the chosen remnant (emphasis mine):

So the chosen remnant is already explained here. Again, chapters 9-11 comprise Paul's section on how God's promises to Israel could be reconciled with the fact that more Gentiles were becoming Christians. As I pointed out, what we read in chapter 9 is consistent moving into chapter 11:

Kilk1 said:

Consistent with chapter 9, chapter 11 also says faith is what separates those chosen from those rejected (11:20). Those who "stand by faith" are in the cultivated olive tree--even Gentile branches previously from the wild olive tree--while all unbelievers are broken off. However, God "may not spare" the believing branches (v. 21) unless they "continue in His goodness" (v. 22).

Click to expand...

This seems about as clear against the once-saved-always-saved doctrine as a passage of Scripture can possibly be. Those God grafts in because they "stand by faith" may be cut off if they fail to continue. If there is a non-Calvinistic way to understand this at all, I want to know, lest I'm in error.

Hammster said:

So if we are going to do that, why not ask, why did they stumble? Well, Paul answers that in chapter 11.

In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
— Romans 11:5-7

Wouldn’t this be a more acceptable way of looking at this, since it actually goes with the flow of the writing?

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is. After Paul makes and defends the point that "the rest were hardened," he makes it clear that they haven't "stumbled that they should fall" (Rom. 11:11). But again, I'm not sure what parallel you're drawing, so I'm not sure what to reply.

Hammster said:

The reason I haven’t gotten to your preferred verses yet is because you are ignoring the context of the whole of Romans, the context of Romans 9-11, and even the context of chapter 11 itself. Not to mention the hand-waving treatment of God being our Father and Christ being our Shepherd. I simply cannot do that. I have to look at all of it, and if there is a more difficult passage, I need to look at it in the view of the clear passages.

Click to expand...

If I knew what your view is of Romans 11:16-22, I'd be better able to follow you. If you're seeing anything other than what I'm seeing, that those God grafts in on account of their faith can later be rejected, I'd like to know what you see. If you do this, I'll try as best as I can to understand how your interpretation better fits the context than mine. Again, here are the questions:

1. Are the branches in Romans 11:16-22 individuals or groups?
2. If groups, what do the two trees represent?
3. What causes branches to be in the cultivated olive tree as opposed to the wild olive tree?
4. Can branches grafted into the cultivated tree be cut off?
5. Can branches cut off from the cultivated tree be grafted in again?

If the taking-everything-out-of-context point isn't just a smokescreen, then you should be able to answer these questions in addition to saying the context agrees with your answers.

Hammster said:

I’m not actually avoiding anything, though I suppose I can see why you’d say this. From my point of view, you want to promote synergism/Arminianism. And in my experience, this means that context will be avoided or ignored.



Here’s an example. You act as if Paul answered the question from chapter 11 here. To believe that I’d have to assume that he gave an answer in chapter 30 to a question he doesn’t even ask in chapter 11. You pretended he asked.

So if we are going to do that, why not ask, why did they stumble? Well, Paul answers that in chapter 11.

In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
— Romans 11:5-7

Wouldn’t this be a more acceptable way of looking at this, since it actually goes with the flow of the writing?

The reason I haven’t gotten to your preferred verses yet is because you are ignoring the context of the whole of Romans, the context of Romans 9-11, and even the context of chapter 11 itself. Not to mention the hand-waving treatment of God being our Father and Christ being our Shepherd. I simply cannot do that. I have to look at all of it, and if there is a more difficult passage, I need to look at it in the view of the clear passages.

Click to expand...

Kilk1 said:

I prefer the term non-Calvinists. While being a non-Calvinist may cause you to lump me with Arminians in the Calvinist-Arminian paradigm, I don't agree with 100% of Arminianism. As far as synergism goes, I do believe there is a response that determines if God chooses you, but not in some sense making God's work insufficient. Man's works can't earn salvation.



Because of the erroneous mention of "chapter 30," I'm not 100% certain what you were saying, but I'm going to guess this much: I shouldn't act as though Paul asks a question in chapter 11 and answers it in chapter 9. If this is what you're saying, it's actually my point! Let's back up. In the post before your last, you asked this about Romans 11:2-6:



While the answer is obviously "God's choice," you were claiming this somehow shows that "Believers won’t fail." The only way this makes sense is if God chooses people to have faith rather than chooses them because of their faith, something verses 2-6 doesn't address. To point out that Paul neither endorses nor condemns this in verses 2-6 (but addresses the question elsewhere), I said this:



I then referenced Romans 9:30-33, a passage which does ask and answer the question of why many Jews aren't in the chosen remnant (emphasis mine):

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”​

So the chosen remnant is already explained here. Again, chapters 9-11 comprise Paul's section on how God's promises to Israel could be reconciled with the fact that more Gentiles were becoming Christians. As I pointed out, what we read in chapter 9 is consistent moving into chapter 11:



This seems about as clear against the once-saved-always-saved doctrine as a passage of Scripture can possibly be. Those God grafts in because they "stand by faith" may be cut off if they fail to continue. If there is a non-Calvinistic way to understand this at all, I want to know, lest I'm in error.



I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is. After Paul makes and defends the point that "the rest were hardened," he makes it clear that they haven't "stumbled that they should fall" (Rom. 11:11). But again, I'm not sure what parallel you're drawing, so I'm not sure what to reply.



If I knew what your view is of Romans 11:16-22, I'd be better able to follow you. If you're seeing anything other than what I'm seeing, that those God grafts in on account of their faith can later be rejected, I'd like to know what you see. If you do this, I'll try as best as I can to understand how your interpretation better fits the context than mine. Again, here are the questions:

1. Are the branches in Romans 11:16-22 individuals or groups?
2. If groups, what do the two trees represent?
3. What causes branches to be in the cultivated olive tree as opposed to the wild olive tree?
4. Can branches grafted into the cultivated tree be cut off?
5. Can branches cut off from the cultivated tree be grafted in again?

If the taking-everything-out-of-context point isn't just a smokescreen, then you should be able to answer these questions in addition to saying the context agrees with your answers.

Click to expand...

What do I need to do before you'll answer my five questions? They represent the focus of what I want to know right now. If they can't be answered yet--and I'm not sure why that would be the case--what do I need to do so that they can be answered? --Kilk1

Hammster said:

What I’ve been trying to do is to get you to engage with the arguments in Romans in the previous 10 chapters which show that our salvation is secure. If we cannot agree on that, then my answer will be in no way satisfying, and any argument would just lead us back to the previous chapters anyway.

Click to expand...

Does this mean I have to agree with your interpretation of chapters before 11 before you'll even explain a reconciliation between them and chapter 11? Could I turn things around then and say that I don't have to deal with "your" passages until you deal with "mine"? What if I instead were to say that Romans is not really inspired because chapter 11 contradicts what Paul says earlier?

Hammster said:

There is no reconciling necessary. There’s no contradiction.

Turning things around makes no sense. Why start at the conclusion of Paul’s argument about the gospel instead of starting at the beginning?

Click to expand...

But I don't think my current interpretation of Romans 11 contradicts anything previously written, so I'm not turning things around. You say there's no reconciliation necessary, but you haven't explained what Romans 11 means. Frankly, I don't know if you can. I hope you'll at least try.

1. Are the branches in Romans 11:16-22 individuals or groups?
2. If groups, what do the two trees represent?
3. What causes branches to be in the cultivated olive tree as opposed to the wild olive tree?
4. Can branches grafted into the cultivated tree be cut off?
5. Can branches cut off from the cultivated tree be grafted in again?

I can't see any answers you could provide that are consistent with Calvinism. If you still won't answer the questions, what must I do? Do I have to agree with your Calvinistic interpretation of previous chapters before you'll answer my questions?

Hammster said:

I tried to warn you.

We know from Paul’s writings that our salvation was secured before creation. So what he’s talking about it presumption. The Jews shouldn’t presume that they are saved just because they are Jews. And the Gentiles shouldn’t presume that they are saved because branches were cut off.

Click to expand...

Okay, now there's an answer that's consistent with Calvinism. Thanks! Now, if the answer is consistent with Romans 11, I'll stop using it against Calvinism similar to how I currently stopped pressing Luke 8. Why, according to the text, were these Gentiles grafted in?

Hammster said:

If it’s in the text, then you tell me.

Click to expand...

It looks like it's in verses 19-20: "You will say then, 'Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.' Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear" (NKJV, emphasis mine). Does this make sense, that the distinction is faith versus unbelief?

Hammster said:

Not to be snarky, but yeah, it’s the difference between believers and unbelievers.

Click to expand...

So in my above quotation of verses 19-20, the last sentence tells those God grafted in by faith, "Do not be haughty, but fear." Paul explains the reason why in verse 21: "For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either." Isn't it true that God "may not spare" believers, then?