ECT Proper Understanding of Romans 11
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
1, he qualified Israel several times in Romans, ch 2, 9, 10, 11
2, how exactly do you save "all" of a ethnicity at one time in the future? What about the ones who died in 450 AD? How do you save all those who died in the desert in sin and unbelief, I Cor 10?
3, there is a difference between a rhetorical future and a literal future. He means rhetorical: all people who believe the Gospel of justification will be saved
4, the things that were future when Isaiah wrote are in existence in Paul's time
5, saved = justified from sins. It does not mean a future theocracy, for which there is no use or need. It totally drops off the table in Acts, except for the misguided leaders of Judaism. Are you with them?
This is the exclusive Christian section. You are not to post here if you do not believe the Bible is God's words. He spoke the universe into existence and can loosen the belt of Orion. I am pretty sure he can do it.
Its not without aforethought the title of this thread.
A careful reading of Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9, the wheat/tares parable in Matthew 13, what the Lord said about some Israelites in contrast to others in Matthew 25, what Paul says about the election of Israel in Romans 9 thru 11, along with, say, what the writer of Hebrews says about both in 2 thru 4, will show that Romans 11:26's "all Israel" is a reference to the believing remnant of that nation all the way to Abraham.
Paul's point in Romans 9 thru 11 is that though it looks as if God is through with His plan and purpose for and through Israel, such is not the case; that the reality is Romans 11:11, and Rom. 11:25.
For His plan and purpose as to all that concerns only the believing remnant of that nation throughout their generations.
But you have so mis-read your misinterpretation of Acts 13 into Romans 9 thru 11, that my words here will have to be addressed to those with ears to hear.
ANYTIME one reads Acts into Paul's writings, rather than Paul into Acts, they are bound to come up with one mistake after another in their understanding of the various issues.
You make that exact sane mistake with Ephesians 2's once far off Gentiles; when, actually, the issue there, is a Dispensational one; Romans 1 thru 3.
The issue is not always "that's what the passage says," rather; what the multiplicity of passages say about a thing, and in the case of Paul's writings; in light of his writings.
Let a passage mean what it says.
And let it say what it means.
How?
Comparing verse with verse, in this (Pauline) case; in light of, even as Peter puts it, in 2 Peter 3, in light of Paul's writings according to the grace given him on these things.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh wrote:
Paul's point in Romans 9 thru 11 is that though it looks as if God is through with His plan and purpose for and through Israel, such is not the case; that the reality is Romans 11:11, and Rom. 11:25.
But not in the distant future; it's true then--Paul's now. That's why Isaiah is quoted historically, shown several times. "will be saved" is the rhetorical kind; the ones who have faith will be justified. You're thinking it is a coming theocracy; it is not. It is justification from sins, as the meaning has been in ch 10 and in Isaiah.
There is nothing in the NT that goes back to the ethnos Israel. You only have to finish out ch 11 past the "fav" passage to see that. Vs30!!!
You want 2P2P to be true and it is not. I don't care what moment you select in Acts, it is not true. Ch 26 ends up clearly without any significant role for Israel as a theocracy; only those individuals who have faith and work in God's mission of the Gospel. "As I am , except for these chains" Paul said.
Mt 21's vineyard parable intentionally uses 'ethnos' for the new people of faith being formed. How could it be any more decisive?
Paul's point in Romans 9 thru 11 is that though it looks as if God is through with His plan and purpose for and through Israel, such is not the case; that the reality is Romans 11:11, and Rom. 11:25.
But not in the distant future; it's true then--Paul's now. That's why Isaiah is quoted historically, shown several times. "will be saved" is the rhetorical kind; the ones who have faith will be justified. You're thinking it is a coming theocracy; it is not. It is justification from sins, as the meaning has been in ch 10 and in Isaiah.
There is nothing in the NT that goes back to the ethnos Israel. You only have to finish out ch 11 past the "fav" passage to see that. Vs30!!!
You want 2P2P to be true and it is not. I don't care what moment you select in Acts, it is not true. Ch 26 ends up clearly without any significant role for Israel as a theocracy; only those individuals who have faith and work in God's mission of the Gospel. "As I am , except for these chains" Paul said.
Mt 21's vineyard parable intentionally uses 'ethnos' for the new people of faith being formed. How could it be any more decisive?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Those who have an understanding of Romans recognize Romans 9,10, and 11 as a microcosm of Israel's past, present (then present) and future. And just what is it that makes you believe you are of a remnant of the election of grace (at that present time) which God foreknew?
You do err. The Romans were in the commonwealth of Israel and in the covenants of promise and were resting in the law whereas the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote the letter were aliens and strangers from them and the law was contrary to them (and us)!
These issues really should be explored on the MAD site; for the resources they can be for those down the road seeking answers to these issues. Besides, there are just to many detractors of Mid-Acts to begin with, over on this side, but very well.
Per Romans 1-3, and 9-11, as well per 1 Thessalonians 2, some eight years earlier, Israel's commonwealth had no longer been God's focus for some time way before 1 Thess., was written, as, when Paul was first saved, he too had been concluded under the power of sin with his nation, 1 Tim. 1.
While, per Romans 15, if the Romans were in the commonwealth of Israel, as you assert, then per Paul's agreement with James, Cephas and John, in Galatians 2, some ten years earlier, he would had no business attempting to put them in the Body, as you also assert as being why he wrote Romans.
If the Romans were part of Israel's promise and its election, then there they would have remained, for that is exactly what Romans 9-11 is asserting - not that God is through with Israel, but that He was now no longer dealing with its issues.
They end up in the Body, but Peter and company; who did not - did not?
No sis, they were "the called of Jesus Christ," Rom. 1:6.
Verse 7's "called to be saints" is in the sense of saints by calling, just as verse 1's "called to be an Apostle, separated unto" is also in the sense of an event that has already transpired, of Paul being an Apostle by calling.
In other words, they are saints because God called them to be, just as He called Paul to be... an Apostle.
1 Cor. 1 is in this same sense, and with a bit more light:
1. Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
God willed that. Its a done deal.
Acts 9:
15. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16. For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
That chosen unto me to bear... is called to be...
Romans 1:
1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Back in in 1 Cor. 1, we read:
2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:
That is what called to be is - one who has been sanctified, or set apart as God's - it's where the word saint comes from - saint - ti -fied.
Your understanding that "called to be" is in the sense of their not yet being, is off-base.
Romans 1:
6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
They are beloved of God - that is what a saint is. In "Paulinese," it means "accepted in the beloved," Eph. 1:6.
In light of the long since established fact of the actual sense of Romans 1:1’s “called to be,” by the time Paul wrote Romans, if, verse 7’s “called to be” refers to their not yet having been saints, then verse 1’s “called to be” means that Paul was not yet an Apostle.
Romans 8:
28. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Here this Body truth is some 8 years earlier in the very chapter relating Israel's commonwealth now awaited a future day - 2 Thessalonians 2:
13. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14. Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Romans already had all that. As time goes, I will continue to lay out more and more passages on this, as there are some good five or six ways to study this out in the KJV, all of which are related to one another.
Suffice it to say that when Paul wrote Romans, it was to remind them of its truth - a truth they already knew - Romans 15:
14. And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
15. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
16. That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
17. I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
18. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19. Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
20. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:
21. But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
In this, there is a reason why greets them as he does that is also part of chapter 1, but is not readily apparent until it is studied out, in light of Romans 1-3 when those three chapters are properly studied out.
Hopefully we can explore these differences in understanding between your view; admittedly later one, and an earlier one, which is the one I subscribe to.
Thinking through your assertions has been a blessing, as time in the Book always is, when one hears something a bit different and goes there to study things out in the spirit of Acts 17:11.
Should prove rewarding should this exploration continue, as we both appear well versed in our respective understandings. Personally, I prefer to examine a thing with someone well versed in their view. I always find I learn something, at the same time that, going in, I never know what that will be.
Last edited:
Job 38:31 KJV
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh wrote:
If the Romans were part of Israel's promise and its election, then there they would have remained, for that is exactly what Romans 9-11 is asserting - not that God is through with Israel, but that He was now no longer dealing with its issues.
That's 2P2P. There is none in the NT. Paul wanted anyone from his countrymen to be in the mission of the Gospel. There are no "theologies" being sorted out in the background of the NT writings. There is just the mission. This is why nothing about the future ethnos of Israel shows in key passages like the presentation in Acts 26 where that is the topic--the destiny or fulfillment or outcome of Israel. It's Judaism that thinks a 2nd P is going on or will go on. Paul says, no, it is all resolved now, and he wants people in his mission.
Israel gets to participate in its call and election by working in the mission of the Gospel. That is exactly what Paul is trying to prod or urge or spur Israel to do in ch 11.
There is no 2P2P, or else everything everywhere about Israel is total confusion by having two meanings.
If the Romans were part of Israel's promise and its election, then there they would have remained, for that is exactly what Romans 9-11 is asserting - not that God is through with Israel, but that He was now no longer dealing with its issues.
That's 2P2P. There is none in the NT. Paul wanted anyone from his countrymen to be in the mission of the Gospel. There are no "theologies" being sorted out in the background of the NT writings. There is just the mission. This is why nothing about the future ethnos of Israel shows in key passages like the presentation in Acts 26 where that is the topic--the destiny or fulfillment or outcome of Israel. It's Judaism that thinks a 2nd P is going on or will go on. Paul says, no, it is all resolved now, and he wants people in his mission.
Israel gets to participate in its call and election by working in the mission of the Gospel. That is exactly what Paul is trying to prod or urge or spur Israel to do in ch 11.
There is no 2P2P, or else everything everywhere about Israel is total confusion by having two meanings.
You are confusing what, yes, Israel confused; you are confusing that as being some confusion on the Dispensationalist's part also.
Now it turns out it depends on which Dispensationalists you are referring to.
For, as with differences in understanding within what is mostly yours and, say, Teltelestai's similar school, there are differences in understanding as to these issues within the Dispensational school.
Where the A9D I more or less hold to will agree with you and yours that Galatians 3 applies, it will not agree as to what you assert about how it does.
Which you assert is our version of Israel's confusion, actually out of your own, due to your approach.
While others who assert an A9D will assert Gal. 3 does apply as you assert it does, but then mistakenly assert that it is not about us.
And that's between people on both sides of this understanding, both with their noses supposedly in The Book.
What hope do you have of sorting theses things out via your nose supposedly in The Book, only after the supposed "fact" of "history" as to Luke/Acts and Paul thru Luke after all that.
As with some of our own, your mis-fire is your sense of Paul in light of Luke, in contrast to Luke in light of Paul.
You take offence to that; but you need to consider it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It would be so useful if you would just say what Israel's confusion was. You spend all your time "locating" other people's positions. What do you think Israel's confusion was?
I don't have to spend anytime locating your confusion, lol, as it was obvious to me from the very first post of yours I read over at CF, back when we were both over there.
As for Israel's confusion - lol, take your pick:
In Matt. 3:9; John 8:33; and Rom. 9:33, it is unbelieving Israel that is "confused."
Then, in Acts 15, it is believing Israel's confusion that is the issue - Acts 15: 5.
While in Galatia the confusion straightened out in Acts 15 was also being asserted by unbelieving Israelites, Gal. 6:13, Rom. 2:25.
It's your failure to note the "Things That Differ" that keep you, brother,..."confused."
Interplanner
Well-known member
OK, if both believing Israel and unbelieving Israel are confused, it must be Gal 3:17: that they have replaced the worldwide promise in the Gospel with the confined ethnic features of the Law.
Problem: Paul does not think people in Judaism who have done this replacement are believers. Gal 3:4. You think God has 2P2P, and that the Jews who believe the other program are "saved" in another way than the Gospel. Paul does not. You're confused.
Problem: Paul does not think people in Judaism who have done this replacement are believers. Gal 3:4. You think God has 2P2P, and that the Jews who believe the other program are "saved" in another way than the Gospel. Paul does not. You're confused.
Acts 15:
5. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
I'm not confused; you're lacking in time in the Word alone.
Consider that you appear to be of the outlook that whenever you read a post on a passage(s) and you take issue with it, you do because it does not line up with your understanding, and not because you actually applied Acts 17:11.
Believing Israel was confused for a time, because there was a change in things.
Of course you have concluded and shut down the book on your conclusion, that Peter was not confused in Acts 10, rather, as you assert; that he was being corrected.
Consider that this is due to your having misunderstood what their "gospel mission" was before the Romans 1 thru 3 change in the order of things that began just prior to Paul's Acts 9 conversion and commissioning, as well as before Peter's Acts 10 experience.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Your last paragraph means that there are two gospels, so there you go on 2P2P again. It does not exist.
The problem with the believing Pharisees is that is also possible from Gal 3 to say that they don't believe! That's why Gal 1 says there is not another Gospel. That's why you can't add anything on to the work of Christ from Judaism and call the addition the Gospel. We know from Colossians' neo-Judaism (neo because they claimed to have been spoken to by the same angels that delivered the law) that they went around telling Christians they were DQ'd because they didn't do the rest of the things revealed. The word Paul uses is the painful "dis-justified"!!! That's what those people said of believers. How can you dare to call such people believers? What about the either/or of Rom 11:6?
It is more likely than messing around with hidden messages inbetween the lines of Acts, that those Pharisees believed correctly at one point. But that's just it: its is past tense. They did believe, but now they are not because they are adding on, which is not faith alone.
Interplanner
Well-known member
When did I ever say Peter was not being corrected or that he was not confused? What in the world. What do you think the plain meaning of Gal 2 is: Paul confronted him!
Way off.
Way off.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Thank you for noting that we take scripture seriously, far more seriously than the average Christian.
A few Christians are serious Bible students, the rest seem to just take everyone else's word instead of studying for themselves.
A lot of people walked away from Moses, Jeremiah, the apostles Peter and Paul and Jesus Christ and many other top notch believers thinking they were a first rate heresy.
So be it.
The Holy Spirit is another name or title (among many, many others) that God gives to himself to teach believers who He is.
God is holy and God is spirit, thus the name/title the Holy Spirit is the logical result.
But this thread is not about me, it is about Romans 11, which is not about Christianity, but is addressed to and about Judeans first and later Gentiles.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Evidently, you have not noted God's exposition of how He distinguishes all peoples into one of three major categories.
I Corinthians 10:32 all people fit into one of the three categories. Each individual is either a Judean or a Gentile or in the church of God.
These categories are mutually exclusive from a spiritual standpoint.
Ie, Give NONE offense, neither to the Jews, Gentiles or the church of God.
Granted, Paul and other Christians make there previous status known, but once a Gentile does Romans 10:9-10, he is no longer a Gentile, but a member in particular in the body of Christ, a part of the church, called out, of God.
Likewise with Judeans...
When you learn that for yourself, Romans 9-11 and other many other passages will be clarified for you
Interplanner
Well-known member
Unless 9-11 are not unclear now! The names used in the issue of not offending does not necessarily apply to the 'other' Israel he mentioned in Rom 9-11 that is by faith. I don't think the two kinds of issues have any overlap.