Passages challenging Calvinism

[Hammster]

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?

No.

 

[Kilk1]

No.

I don't follow. Paul's talking to the branches God grafted in. They were grafted in because they "stand by faith" (v. 20). In the next verse, Paul warns them, saying God "may not spare you" (v. 21).

 

[Hammster]

Remember when I said that we needed to understand the first 10 chapters first?

Yeah, that.

 

[Kilk1]

Remember when I said that we needed to understand the first 10 chapters first?

Yeah, that.

But if you understand the first ten chapters to teach perseverance of the saints and then come to this chapter, there still must be something chapter 11 means, right? Or does Romans 11 not mean anything at all? What does it mean when Paul tells branches they "stand by faith" (v. 20) and then tells the same branches that God "may not spare you" (v. 21)? Are we supposed to tell Paul, "No, you're wrong because of what you said earlier"? You literally said just "No" when I asked if God may not spare believers, and yet Paul says "He may not spare" branches standing by faith.

You say that understanding the first ten chapters makes things clearer. If so, what do you as a Calvinist see when you read 11:20-21? (I hope the answer isn't "That I need to understand the first ten chapters." )

 

[Hammster]

I already answered your question.

Passages challenging Calvinism

 

[Kilk1]

I already answered your question.

Passages challenging Calvinism

Wait, did you mean that the branches God grafted in because they "[stood] by faith" weren't necessarily saved?

 

[Hammster]

Wait, did you mean that the branches God grafted in because they "[stood] by faith" weren't necessarily saved?

You need to understand that it’s pastoral before it’s theological. And every church has people who are not saved, though it may look like they are. For example, we had a baptism yesterday for a young lady who most thought was saved, but was only saved last week. It appeared that she was a believer, but obviously she was not.

It’s reasonable for a pastor to warn folks not to be presumptuous.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You need to understand that it’s pastoral before it’s theological. And every church has people who are not saved, though it may look like they are. For example, we had a baptism yesterday for a young lady who most thought was saved, but was only saved last week. It appeared that she was a believer, but obviously she was not.

It’s reasonable for a pastor to warn folks not to be presumptuous.

Please explain what she said in her testimony that would lead one to conclude what you have concluded.

Thanks.

iow, how do YOU know she "was saved last week". What specifics did she say that proves this?

 

[Kilk1]

You need to understand that it’s pastoral before it’s theological. And every church has people who are not saved, though it may look like they are. For example, we had a baptism yesterday for a young lady who most thought was saved, but was only saved last week. It appeared that she was a believer, but obviously she was not.

It’s reasonable for a pastor to warn folks not to be presumptuous.

I'm aware of this type of reply. A number of passages appear to state that those who are saved can fall away (Gal. 5:4; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; Heb. 3:12; 10:26, 29); the Calvinistic response is similar to what you just stated. But that's why I chose this passage for discussion. Isn't Romans known for being a theological book?

Who does the grafting and cutting (see vv. 22-23) and why (see v. 20)?

 

[Hammster]

I'm aware of this type of reply. A number of passages appear to state that those who are saved can fall away (Gal. 5:4; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; Heb. 3:12; 10:26, 29); the Calvinistic response is similar to what you just stated. But that's why I chose this passage for discussion. Isn't Romans known for being a theological book?

Who does the grafting and cutting (see vv. 22-23) and why (see v. 20)?

I’ve tried to explain that you can’t just jump into the middle. That’s where you want to camp.

It’s been fun, though.

 

[Kilk1]

I’ve tried to explain that you can’t just jump into the middle. That’s where you want to camp.

It’s been fun, though.

And I've explained that I don't see a contradiction between Romans 11 and my interpretation of the previous chapters. Even if I'm wrong, and there is a contradiction, Romans 11 would still mean something, obviously. If you read the previous chapters and come to the Calvinistic interpretations of them, how would you answer what I've asked in light of such:

Who does the grafting and cutting (see Rom. 11:22-23) and why (see v. 20)?