The elect cut off

[SeventhValley]

Paul warns us that we can cause our brothers to loose sin and even the elect can be cut off.
What is the Calvinist understanding of these teachings?

Also

God commands us to be perfect and to no longer sin once he regenerates us. How do you view these teachings from your point of view?

 

[SeventhValley]

Matthew 5:48 HCSB

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[SeventhValley]

Romans 11:20-22 HCSB

True enough; they were broken off by unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. Therefore, consider God’s kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you — if you remain in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

 

[AndOne]

Romans 11:20-22 HCSB

True enough; they were broken off by unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. Therefore, consider God’s kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you — if you remain in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

I don't see where he is specifically speaking of the elect in this passage....

 

[SeventhValley]

Before Christ Jerusalem was the elect , after Christ any nation could have elect. He is warning that if the elect were cut off before,they could be again, hence his warning to remain in Christ. How dose the Calvinist view this teaching?

 

[SeventhValley]

I know John Gill said " wherefore the apostle
recommends to their serious consideration
the severity of God in the casting off of the
Jews, and his goodness in taking in them,
the Gentiles; and threatens them with
cutting off, should they slight, neglect, or
misuse the goodness of God to them in his
house and ordinances,"

But if God is the one causing them to be cut off instead of enabling them to choose why even bother warning them?

I don't understand why Gill would say there actions matter?

 

[AndOne]

Before Christ Jerusalem was the elect , after Christ any nation could have elect. He is warning that if the elect were cut off before,they could be again, hence his warning to remain in Christ. How dose the Calvinist view this teaching?

Yea - but in the text you are referencing he is not necessarily talking to the elect. You are trying to read into it. When Paul speaks of or to the elect he speaks directly to them as the elect. That's not the case here. Bottom line - if you are not elect its possible to be cut off from the vine since you are not saved to begin with. That's my take on it.

 

[SeventhValley]

Thanks for the reply.

 

[JM]

A lot has to do with the nature of the old covenant made with National Israel at Sinai and the new covenant made with believers only.

Notes From Hebrews 8.6-9 | Feileadh Mor

A. W. Pink on Hebrews 8.

The republication of the covenant of works at Sinai:

In approaching the subject of the two covenants, the old and the new, it should be pointed out that it is not always an easy matter to determine whether the “old covenant” designates the Mosaic economy or the covenant of works which God made with Adam (Hos. 6:7 margin); nor to decide whether the “new covenant” refers to the Gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant of grace which was inaugurated by the first promise made to Adam (Gen. 3:15) and confirmed to Abraham (Gen. 17). In each case the context must decide. We may add that the principal passages where the two covenants are described and contrasted are found in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, Galatians chapter 3 and 4, Hebrews chapters 8, 9 and 12.
​

Pink, following Owen’s lead, views the old Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works made with Adam before the fall. He also finds evidence for the new covenant of grace promised to Adam after the fall, fulfilled by the death of the testator Jesus Christ. [Proto-Evangelium]

Commenting on Hebrews 8.6:

This more excellent ministry Christ is here said to have “obtained.” The way whereby the Lord Jesus entered on the whole office and work of His mediation has been expressed in Hebrews 1:4 as by “inheritance”: that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made unto Him as the Son
​

The ministry of the old covenant was powerless, it never obtained anything and only looked forward to the promised Messiah.
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8.7

The covenant which is here referred to is that into which Jehovah entered with Israel at Sinai: see Exodus 19:5; 34:27, 28; Deuteronomy 4:13. Israel’s response is recorded in Exodus 19:8, 24:3. It was ratified by blood: Exodus 24:4-8. This was not the “first” covenant absolutely, but the first made with Israel nationally. Previously, God had made a covenant with Adam (Hos. 6:7), and in some respects the Covenant at Sinai adumbrated [adumbrated: To give a sketchy outline of; To prefigure indistinctly; foreshadow.] it, for it was chiefly one of works.So too He had made a covenant with Abraham, which in some respects adumbrated the Everlasting Covenant, inasmuch as it was one purely of grace. Prior to Sinai, God dealt with Israel on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, as is clear from Exodus 2:24; 6:3, 4. But it was on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant that Israel entered Canaan: see Joshua 7:11, 15; Judges 2:19-21; 1 Kings 11:11; Jeremiah 34:18, 19.
​

Pink asks the question, Wherein lay its “faultiness?” It was wholly external, accompanied by no internal efficacy. It set before Israel an objective standard but supplied no power to measure up to it. It treated with men in the flesh, and therefore the law was impotent through the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3). It provided a sacrifice for sin, but the value thereof was only ceremonial and transient, failing to actually put away sin. It was unable to secure actual redemption. Hence because of its inadequacy, a new and better covenant was needed.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[drjean]

God never even suggests, in His Word, anything that we cannot be or do. So, we are perfect in Christ, our spirit is regenerated and clothed in His Righteousness.

The Jews are God's elect; those regenerated during the age of grace are His Bride.

 

[SeventhValley]

A lot has to do with the nature of the old covenant made with National Israel at Sinai and the new covenant made with believers only.

Notes From Hebrews 8.6-9 | Feileadh Mor

A. W. Pink on Hebrews 8.

The republication of the covenant of works at Sinai:

In approaching the subject of the two covenants, the old and the new, it should be pointed out that it is not always an easy matter to determine whether the “old covenant” designates the Mosaic economy or the covenant of works which God made with Adam (Hos. 6:7 margin); nor to decide whether the “new covenant” refers to the Gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant of grace which was inaugurated by the first promise made to Adam (Gen. 3:15) and confirmed to Abraham (Gen. 17). In each case the context must decide. We may add that the principal passages where the two covenants are described and contrasted are found in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, Galatians chapter 3 and 4, Hebrews chapters 8, 9 and 12.
​

Pink, following Owen’s lead, views the old Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works made with Adam before the fall. He also finds evidence for the new covenant of grace promised to Adam after the fall, fulfilled by the death of the testator Jesus Christ. [Proto-Evangelium]

Commenting on Hebrews 8.6:

This more excellent ministry Christ is here said to have “obtained.” The way whereby the Lord Jesus entered on the whole office and work of His mediation has been expressed in Hebrews 1:4 as by “inheritance”: that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made unto Him as the Son
​

The ministry of the old covenant was powerless, it never obtained anything and only looked forward to the promised Messiah.
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8.7

The covenant which is here referred to is that into which Jehovah entered with Israel at Sinai: see Exodus 19:5; 34:27, 28; Deuteronomy 4:13. Israel’s response is recorded in Exodus 19:8, 24:3. It was ratified by blood: Exodus 24:4-8. This was not the “first” covenant absolutely, but the first made with Israel nationally. Previously, God had made a covenant with Adam (Hos. 6:7), and in some respects the Covenant at Sinai adumbrated [adumbrated: To give a sketchy outline of; To prefigure indistinctly; foreshadow.] it, for it was chiefly one of works.So too He had made a covenant with Abraham, which in some respects adumbrated the Everlasting Covenant, inasmuch as it was one purely of grace. Prior to Sinai, God dealt with Israel on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, as is clear from Exodus 2:24; 6:3, 4. But it was on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant that Israel entered Canaan: see Joshua 7:11, 15; Judges 2:19-21; 1 Kings 11:11; Jeremiah 34:18, 19.
​

Pink asks the question, Wherein lay its “faultiness?” It was wholly external, accompanied by no internal efficacy. It set before Israel an objective standard but supplied no power to measure up to it. It treated with men in the flesh, and therefore the law was impotent through the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3). It provided a sacrifice for sin, but the value thereof was only ceremonial and transient, failing to actually put away sin. It was unable to secure actual redemption. Hence because of its inadequacy, a new and better covenant was needed.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Thanks jm. Very interesting on the old and new covenants. Why dose Paul then provide a warning to be careful not to be cut off?

 

[JM]

Thanks jm. Very interesting on the old and new covenants. Why dose Paul then provide a warning to be careful not to be cut off?

Most Baptists hold to the idea of once saved always saved but that doctrine is rather new to Calvinism and linked with the doctrine of antinomianism. Calvinists believe the saints of God will continue in thefaith, this is called The Perseverance of the Saints, explained below:

"This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof."
( Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40 )

Now that it has been explained I would like to see a few of the verse you have in mind.

Your in The Lord,

jm

 

[SeventhValley]

The main verse is Paul's warning on the previous page which Gill seemed to accept as a warning to the elect.

I have my own understanding of the warnings but I am trying to better understand Calvinists from their point of view.

 

[hedrick]

On Rom 11:22, most commentators see a real possibility of being cut off. As being part of the people of God depends upon faith, so losing faith means no longer being part of the people. Even Moo, who takes a standard predestinarian reading of Rom 9, treats it that way.

Technically it's not a problem. Calvinists do not deny that people fall away. They simply believe that it's part of God's plan, and that those people weren't actually elect. But God's plan normally works through human means, and part of preserving the saints is warning them not to fall.

(While 11:22 doesn't actually contradict Calvinist election, it's a matter of judgement whether Paul is actually teaching a Calvinist view, here as elsewhere in the letter. I tend towards Paul Achtemeier's reading of Romans, which is not purely Calvinist.)

The problem with Romans is that Paul is speaking of "salvation history," and thus he's speaking of an overall plan for Israel as well as the salvation of individuals. Commentators tend to decide when Paul is referring to individuals and when he is taking salvation-history perspective depending upon their understanding of Paul's overall theology. (That's the way modern non-Calvinist readings of Rom 9 work, for example.) Calvin suggests a salvation-history interpretation of Rom 11:22, and also a motivational approach. That is, he sees this as directed to Israel as a whole, and not specifically to the elect. But he also sees it as motivational, as I described in the second paragraph.

 

[JM]

Considering the old and new covenants, and how the confession clearly explains perservance, we must continue to the end by faith. Only a God given and God sustained belief will last and this kind of faith is given by God. The covenant made at Sinai was a national covenant, circumcision was not a matter of faith but of national identity, one did not have to be of the faith to partake in the national blessings. Of course the elect (believers) could be found in Israel but the nation and the promises given to that nation were expanded under the new covenant being given to the world based on faith alone. Gal. 3 explains that Christ is the promised seed of Abraham and by faith in Him we receive the promises. Israel as a nation was unbelieving and so cut off from the promises given under the new covenant which are received by faith alone.

I'm typing on and iphone and will clarify what I posted latter.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

 

[SeventhValley]

O.k. thanks everyone

 

[drjean]

The idea of once-saved-always-saved is not new to Calvinism, btw. It's the "P" in TULIP...preservation of the saints.

 

[JM]

The idea of once-saved-always-saved is not new to Calvinism, btw. It's the "P" in TULIP...preservation of the saints.

I think it is important to distinguish the two phrases. The Reformed Confessions express clearly that we must continue in faith, the very fact that we continue demonstrates our salvation and only those who have faith until the end are saved. So yeah, once saved always saved, but it doesn't end with just a profession of faith. The emphasis in OSAS tends to lead to a one time profession of faith and that's it.

Forgive me where I have erred. I just prefer the confessional statement over the OSAS acronym because it is much more clear. Those who fall away were never saved, those who remain faithful to Christ do so out of pure grace, but the fact remains...we must be faithful until the end.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[drjean]

Ok. But since we can do nothing to gain nor keep our salvation, the "keeping faith" is mere evidence that we did receive salvation and has nothing to do with whether we remain faithful or not.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Paul warns us that we can cause our brothers to loose sin and even the elect can be cut off.
What is the Calvinist understanding of these teachings?

Also

God commands us to be perfect and to no longer sin once he regenerates us. How do you view these teachings from your point of view?

It's always interesting how when the perseverance of the Saints is denied, how the same people will argue in favor of the omniscience of God and the immutability of God (including His knowledge). If the elect can be "cut off", then they were only "elect" in the mind and sight of men, not the mind and sight of God, and were never chosen or effectually called by God before the foundation of the world, never having their name in Lamb's book of life...we do not believe God makes mistakes or needs an eraser, do we?