The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

[jmdrake]

I see that as describing groups of people as groups, not as individuals.

Groups are made up of individuals. I sincerely doubt that anyone in Paul's day believed that all Gentiles were going to be saved.

The natural branches who were broken off weren't individual Israelites who used to have faith but then lost it, but Israelites in general who didn't believe and thus did not have connection to that tree, whereas they had forebears who were connected to that tree. Similarly, Gentiles were coming to be connected to that tree. But this situation could be done away with, such that future Gentiles would not be.

There's no possible way that the Gentiles thought all Gentiles, including those persecuting the church at the time, would be saved.

 

[erowe1]

Groups are made up of individuals. I sincerely doubt that anyone in Paul's day believed that all Gentiles were going to be saved.

I agree, nor could he have possibly been saying that no Jews were saved, nor that it had previously been the case that all Jews were saved. He's using generalities there. But he's still talking about groups as groups. When he mentions the natural branches being cut off, I don't see any way to construe that as him talking about individual Jews who formerly were saved but lost their salvation. So when he talks about the branches that were grafted on (by way of the expansion of the blessings of Abraham to Gentiles), later being cut off, I don't think we need to say that here in this case he is talking about individuals losing their salvation.

Natural branches being cut off is the situation of Jews in general rejecting the Gospel. Unnatural branches being grafted on is talking about Gentiles accepting it (not all Gentiles, just some). The prospect of unnatural branches being cut off would then be that of Gentiles (some, not all) no longer accepting the Gospel. And then, when those natural branches do get grafted back on, it's not those same individual Jews who were unsaved when the natural branches were cut off, but some later generation of Jews who, when that day comes, will accept the Gospel.

Significantly, behind all these things is God, tending his tree, deciding who will and won't accept the Gospel so as to be grafted onto it or cut off.

In the context, Paul also goes on to explain that this cutting off of the Gentiles is not what God has in store, but rather that God is executing a plan wherein the Jewish rejection of the Gospel would result in Gentile acceptance of it, and that this Gentile acceptance of it would provoke Jews to jealousy, such that ultimately all Israel will be saved (not all Israel of all generations, but all Israel of that generation whenever this eventually happens). And this ultimate salvation of Israel will result in even more blessings for the Gentiles than the Israel's rejection of the Gospel did which was what led to the spread of the Gospel to Gentiles.

 

[jmdrake]

I agree, nor could he have possibly been saying that no Jews were saved, nor that it had previously been the case that all Jews were saved. He's using generalities there. But he's still talking about groups as groups. When he mentions the natural branches being cut off, I don't see any way to construe that as him talking about individual Jews who formerly were saved but lost their salvation. So when he talks about the branches that were grafted on (by way of the expansion of the blessings of Abraham to Gentiles), later being cut off, I don't think we need to say that here in this case he is talking about individuals losing their salvation.

Natural branches being cut off is the situation of Jews in general rejecting the Gospel. Unnatural branches being grafted on is talking about Gentiles accepting it (not all Gentiles, just some). The prospect of unnatural branches being cut off would then be that of Gentiles (some, not all) no longer accepting the Gospel. And then, when those natural branches do get grafted back on, it's not those same individual Jews who were unsaved when the natural branches were cut off, but some later generation of Jews who, when that day comes, will accept the Gospel.

Significantly, behind all these things is God, tending his tree, deciding who will and won't accept the Gospel so as to be grafted onto it or cut off.

In the context, Paul also goes on to explain that this cutting off of the Gentiles is not what God has in store, but rather that God is executing a plan wherein the Jewish rejection of the Gospel would result in Gentile acceptance of it, and that this Gentile acceptance of it would provoke Jews to jealousy, such that ultimately all Israel will be saved (not all Israel of all generations, but all Israel of that generation whenever this eventually happens). And this ultimate salvation of Israel will result in even more blessings for the Gentiles than the Israel's rejection of the Gospel did which was what led to the spread of the Gospel to Gentiles.

Sorry, but your interpretation makes no sense. How could he be talking about some Gentiles no longer accepting Jesus when most Gentiles of Paul's day didn't accept Jesus? In order to qualify as a "falling away" there had to be a situation of a grafting in first. The Jewish argument makes sense because all Jews were at least looking for the Messiah, though most rejected Him. The Gentiles represent the opposition position. Sorry, nice try but that's a stretch.

 

[erowe1]

Sorry, but your interpretation makes no sense. How could he be talking about some Gentiles no longer accepting Jesus when most Gentiles of Paul's day didn't accept Jesus?

Because while most didn't believe, some did. And when he talks about branches being grafted in, that is because of those that did believe. This may have been an insignificant number in comparison to the world population. But when viewed in the context of Paul's ministry and the successes he had with Gentiles in comparison with the failures he had with his kinsmen according to the flesh, it was significant.

Is your position that when he refers to natural branches being cut off, he's talking about Jews as a group, and not individual Jews losing their salvation, and then when he talks about natural branches being grafted back on he is again talking about Jews as a group later accepting the Gospel and not individual Jews who had once been saved and then lost their salvation and then got saved again, but when he talks about unnatural branches being cut off, then he is talking about individual Gentiles losing their salvation?

 

[jmdrake]

Because while most didn't believe, some did.

Right. And ^that disproves the point that you are trying to make. The Jews, as a nation, were God's people. The Gentiles, as individuals choose to believe got grafted in. So clearly Paul was talking about the individuals. I

And when he talks about branches being grafted in, that is because of those that did believe.

Right. Those that believed were grafted in. And this is what he said to them.

Romans 11:17-21
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Sorry, but there is no honest way to read that passage and think that Paul was not giving a warning to Gentile believers who had been grafted in to be careful not to be arrogant because they could also "not be spared".

This may have been an insignificant number in comparison to the world population. But when viewed in the context of Paul's ministry and the successes he had with Gentiles in comparison with the failures he had with his kinsmen according to the flesh, it was significant.

That's nice. But that doesn't change the fact that Paul was directly addressing Gentile believers who had been grafted in not to be arrogant, but "tremble". He wasn't telling them to "tremble" because other Gentiles might not believe, but to "tremble" that "they" (the believers) be spared. Paul wasn't warning that God would be against them for making a mistake, but that they should remember that the only reason they were able to stand was through faith. Paul's warning here is similar to the one he gave in 1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. Now it's true that the context of 1 Corinthians 10:12 was about various sins (adultery, idolatry etc) and perhaps you don't believe that your walk has anything to do with your salvation. But my point is that while 1 Corinthians 10:12 was clearly a specific warning, so is the warning we've been talking about in Romans. Paul wasn't talking about success versus non-success in ministry.

Is your position that when he refers to natural branches being cut off, he's talking about Jews as a group, and not individual Jews losing their salvation, and then when he talks about natural branches being grafted back on he is again talking about Jews as a group later accepting the Gospel and not individual Jews who had once been saved and then lost their salvation and then got saved again, but when he talks about unnatural branches being cut off, then he is talking about individual Gentiles losing their salvation?

Jews, by definition, were believers in the coming Messiah. Those who denied the prophets were cut off from being Jews. Those who rejected Jesus went from being believers in the coming Messiah to non-believers in the Messiah who did come. So Paul was talking about individuals going from being believers to non believers and being cut off of the tree. By contrast, many Jews believed and remained as branches. Note that Paul never said that all the branches fell off the olive tree. It was only the branches they fell into unbelief.

 

[erowe1]

Jews, by definition, were believers in the coming Messiah.

That's not true. And to the extent that they did believe that, that's not the same thing as saving faith. They are natural branches, on account of being Israelites, according to the flesh, and their lack of faith, though removing them from the blessings of God's promises to Abraham, does not change the fact that they are the natural branches and the Gentiles are the unnatural ones. All through Romans 9-11 Paul refers to Israel, and it's always ethnic Israel, and up until that point in chapter 11 when he reveals God's plan of all Israel ultimate coming to faith, he talks about their lack of faith. Even while they lack faith, it is still the case that to them (Israel views as a group) belong the covenants, the promises, the patriarchs, the adoption as sones, the giving of the Law, the glory, the worship, and the coming of the Messiah according to the flesh (9:3-4).

The cutting off of the natural branches is not saved Israelites who then changed their minds and lost their salvation, it's these same unsaved Israelites who never had salvation that Paul has been discussing all through Romans 9-11. The ones who sought righteousness by the Law, and thus never attained it.

And then, again, when Paul talks about natural branches who had been cut off getting grafted back on, he's not saying that the very same individual Israelites who disbelieved will later come to faith, but that Israelites in general will. My interpretation of this is that this coming salvation of all Israel is still yet future. If I'm right about that, then it can't be the same individuals getting grafted back on who were cut off in the first century, it must be a completely different generation of Israel.

 

[jmdrake]

That's not true.

Okay. I don't think you're even being serious at this point. Show from the Bible that there were significant groups of Jews who were not looking for some version of the Messiah. Even the Samaritans believed that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's not true. And to the extent that they did believe that, that's not the same thing as saving faith. They are natural branches, on account of being Israelites, according to the flesh, and their lack of faith, though removing them from the blessings of God's promises to Abraham, does not change the fact that they are the natural branches and the Gentiles are the unnatural ones. All through Romans 9-11 Paul refers to Israel, and it's always ethnic Israel, and up until that point in chapter 11 when he reveals God's plan of all Israel ultimate coming to faith, he talks about their lack of faith. Even while they lack faith, it is still the case that to them (Israel views as a group) belong the covenants, the promises, the patriarchs, the adoption as sones, the giving of the Law, the glory, the worship, and the coming of the Messiah according to the flesh (9:3-4).

The cutting off of the natural branches is not saved Israelites who then changed their minds and lost their salvation, it's these same unsaved Israelites who never had salvation that Paul has been discussing all through Romans 9-11. The ones who sought righteousness by the Law, and thus never attained it.

And then, again, when Paul talks about natural branches who had been cut off getting grafted back on, he's not saying that the very same individual Israelites who disbelieved will later come to faith, but that Israelites in general will. My interpretation of this is that this coming salvation of all Israel is still yet future. If I'm right about that, then it can't be the same individuals getting grafted back on who were cut off in the first century, it must be a completely different generation of Israel.

IDRC...Messianic Jews were a pretty small part of the population, yes?

 

[erowe1]

Okay. I don't think you're even being serious at this point. Show from the Bible that there were significant groups of Jews who were not looking for some version of the Messiah. Even the Samaritans believed that.

How would I show you that? What would it take?

I don't know if this will be enough for you (it doesn't prove a negative anyway), but the writings of Philo are contemporaneous with the first generation of Christianity, and they are enormous (something like 15 volumes in the Loeb Classical Library), he was Jew, and I don't think he ever mentions any expectation for a Messiah.

Besides, all I said was that that's not what, by definition, makes someone a Jew. And again, the more important point is that, regardless what they believed, the natural branches that got cut off do not represent Jews that used to have saving faith and then lost it.

 

[jmdrake]

How would I show you that? What would it take?

Besides, all I said was that that's not what, by definition, makes someone a Jew. And again, the more important point is that, regardless what they believed, the natural branches that got cut off do not represent Jews that used to have saving faith and then lost it.

Being a Jew, at that, meant following some semblance of the Jewish religion. And central to the Jewish religion was the expectation of the Messiah. Even though the Sadducees weren't expecting a "God-king" they were expecting a special "anointed one" and Messiah simply means "anointed one." Technically David was a type of "messiah." My point is that Jesus didn't fit their expectations. His followers made it past this "great disappointment" and realized, after the resurrection, what Jesus' true mission was.

But even if we go with your argument, which I believe has absolutely no merit and was more of a theological "hail Mary", that still doesn't change the fact that the Pharasees were expecting the Messiah. In fact they asked John the Baptist "Are you the Christ?" So again, you have someone going from a state of belief to unbelief. They rejected the real thing when it was presented to them.

Regardless, none of your argument gets you passed the point Paul made to his converted Gentile audience that they had to be careful that they not fall away. He wasn't saying "Be careful lest we stop having as much success with the Gentiles". Sorry, but your interpretation just doesn't fit the text. I'm sure you will stick with it anyway though because its the only way around a belief that you disagree with. That's just human nature.

 

[erowe1]

Being a Jew, at that, meant following some semblance of the Jewish religion. And central to the Jewish religion was the expectation of the Messiah.

That was not central to the Jewish religion. It was a widely held tenet. If you were to boil down early Judaism to its common denominators, I don't think you'd be able to get much more specific than agreement on God's election of Israel, and his giving them the Torah, which would result in rewards and punishments based on their obedience or disobedience of it.

 

[erowe1]

Regardless, none of your argument gets you passed the point Paul made to his converted Gentile audience that they had to be careful that they not fall away.

They = Gentile Christians as a group. He's not talking about individual Gentile Christians losing their salvation, just as he's not talking about individual Jews losing their salvation and then getting it back.

He wasn't saying "Be careful lest we stop having as much success with the Gentiles".

That is exactly what he was saying. That's what his entire argument in this part of Romans is about.

 

[erowe1]

But even if we go with your argument, which I believe has absolutely no merit and was more of a theological "hail Mary", that still doesn't change the fact that the Pharasees were expecting the Messiah.

Yes, at least some Pharisees expected a Messiah.

But that doesn't get you very far. According to Josephus there were only something like 5,000 Pharisees.

I don't deny that many Jews expected a Messiah. I'm just saying that that belief wasn't what made them Jews, and that to the extent that many did have that expectation it wasn't saving faith.

 

[TER]

That was not central to the Jewish religion. It was a widely held tenet. If you were to boil down early Judaism to its common denominators, I don't think you'd be able to get much more specific than agreement on God's election of Israel, and his giving them the Torah, which would result in rewards and punishments based on their obedience or disobedience of it.

Please take what erowe says with a grain of salt. Although he thinks himself wise, his knowledge is poor and his scholarship is lacking. Above he states Philo's writings are 15 volumes and then makes the claim that he has never read him mention any expectation of a Messiah. Are when then to assume that erowe has read all 15 volumes to make such a bold claim? And if he did, then this is a man (who claims) to have read so many writings of a first century Jew but is completely illiterate when it comes to the writings of the Church Fathers. Very telling. In other words, he is a poor source for information, especially with regards to the early Church.

In the first century there were three main groups of Jews spread throughout the known world, namely the Pharisees, the Sadduccess, and the Essenes, All three were expecting a Messiah and it was indeed a central tenet of their faith and expectation.

 

[jmdrake]

They = Gentile Christians as a group. He's not talking about individual Gentile Christians losing their salvation, just as he's not talking about individual Jews losing their salvation and then getting it back.

So you say. That's your interpretation. And it's rather absurd. The Gentiles could "lose as a group" what they didn't have as a group.

That is exactly what he was saying. That's what his entire argument in this part of Romans is about.

Nope. That's your interpretation. And it simply makes no sense. Again, worshiping the true God wasn't part of Gentile culture like it was Jewish culture.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, at least some Pharisees expected a Messiah.

But that doesn't get you very far. According to Josephus there were only something like 5,000 Pharisees.

I don't deny that many Jews expected a Messiah.

Many is an understatement. Most Jews expected the Messiah! It wasn't just the Pharisees. EVEN THE SAMARITANS WERE EXPECTING THE MESSIAH! They weren't even Jews. For you to even try to argue this shows how off base your position is.

But actually, your example highlights my point that their expectation of a Messiah was not something that Paul recognized as saving faith.

Paul stated they were removed from the tree. So whatever that means, whatever you think that means, Paul was warning his audience "Don't let it happen to you." And it's fine for you to have your own interpretation. It's wrong for you to pretend that it's anything but an interpretation.

 

[jmdrake]

Please take what erowe says with a grain of salt. Although he thinks himself wise, his knowledge is poor and his scholarship is lacking. Above he states Philo's writings are 15 volumes and then makes the claim that he has never read him mention any expectation of a Messiah. Are when then to assume that erowe has read all 15 volumes to make such a bold claim? And if he did, then this is a man (who claims) to have read so many writings of a first century Jew but is completely illiterate when it comes to the writings of the Church Fathers. Very telling. In other words, he is a poor source for information, especially with regards to the early Church.

In the first century there were three main groups of Jews spread throughout the known world, namely the Pharisees, the Sadduccess, and the Essenes, All three were expecting a Messiah and it was indeed a central tenet of their faith and expectation.

Yep. Even non Jews were expecting the Messiah.

John 4:19-26
19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

You don't even have to go beyond the gospels to realize that the coming of the Messiah was a central Jewish teaching.

 

[erowe1]

So you say. That's your interpretation. And it's rather absurd. The Gentiles could "lose as a group" what they didn't have as a group.

Gentile Christians, as a group, had it. And everything Paul says about them in that passage is only about them as a group. Nothing in that passage has anything at all to do with anyone losing their salvation.

And, by the way, just as important as this, is the point that Paul goes on to say that this threat of the unnatural branches being cut back off is not going to happen. He goes on in Romans 11 to describe God's plan from start to finish:
1) Gospel goes to Israel
2) Israel rejects the Gospel
3) Gospel goes to Gentiles
4) Gentiles accept the Gospel
5) Salvation of Gentiles provokes Israel to jealousy
6) Israel accepts the Gospel
7) All Israel gets saved
8) The salvation of Israel redounds to the Gentiles with even more blessings than their earlier rejection of the Gospel did

 

[erowe1]

Most Jews expected the Messiah

You may well be right about that. I don't know how you'd prove it. The fact that a Samaritan expected a messiah doesn't prove anything about what percentage of Jews did too.

But saying that most Jews expected a messiah is a far cry from saying that the expectation of a messiah was essential to being a Jew.

In fact, the word Jew is really an anachronism. It would be better to call them Judeans. The Greek Ioudaios is essentially an ethnic and geographical term. The Judeans of the diaspora were Judeans because of their connection to the people of Judea, together with their cult and traditions.

 

[jmdrake]

Gentile Christians, as a group, had it. And everything Paul says about them in that passage is only about them as a group. Nothing in that passage has anything at all to do with anyone losing their salvation.

Okay. So Paul is warning that Gentile Christians, as a group, could fall away? That makes absolutely no sense.