quote:

---

Rm. 11.7, 11 “7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened…(vv. 8-10 give Scriptural examples of this)….11 So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means!”

---

In v. 7 Paul recognizes that among the physical descendents of Abraham there exists an “elect” that is chosen by God and a “rest” that is hardened by God. The present refusal of Christ by Israel on the one hand, and the widespread acceptance of the gospel by Gentiles on the other is to be explained by the fact that God freely elected those who believe and freely hardened those who have not believed. Calvinists place this unconditional election in eternity.

In v. 11, however, Paul asks whether or not “they” have stumbled beyond recovery? Who is this “they”? These in fact are “the rest” who in v. 7 are hardened and not elect. Paul asks whether or not these have stumbled beyond recovery. What Paul essentially asks is whether or not election and hardening is irrevocable. His answer? “By no means!” Those who in v. 7 are “the rest,” hardened by God and not elect, may become elect. The “hardened unelected rest” of v. 7 are the “they” of Paul’s question in vv. 11, 12, and 15. They are the “dough” of v. 16 and the “some” branches that were broken off in v. 17f. In fact, v. 23 addresses these same “hardened” Jews and declares that they may become elect. This all suggests that individual membership in the “elect” is not determined from eternity, that one who has been hardened in unbelief, not elect, may become elect provided he responds in faith to the gracious invitation of the gospel. Election to salvation then is not an eternal and irrevocable choice of individuals to salvation, but rather an eternal and irrevocable choice to relate to savingly to humanity on the basis of faith and not works.

Calvinists help me out here.

The only thing I can imagine a Calvinist would reply here with would be to admit that the “election” and “hardening” of which Paul speaks in these verses ARE reversible but that this reflects our own human perception of the outworking of God’s plans. Behind this there lies the eternal, unconditional, and so irrevocable decree to elect and harden individuals with regard to salvation. From our perspective people enter and exit the “visible” covenant community, they may be hardened and then not hardened to this reality. Thus, the election and hardening described here reflect the observable changing relations of people to God and not the eternal unconditional election (with a big “E”).

The problem with this that I see is that it creates two elections and two hardenings. Arrghhh! Looks like those old commercials where a set of “twins” comes out singing about double-good, double-fresh, double-mint chewing gum. Those who are Elect (with a big “E”) may sometimes be hardened (with a little “h”), and visa verse. But those Elected (with a big “E”) may never be Hardened (with a big “H”) and visa versa. Are there any Calvinists out there who actually argue this? The problem with this that I see is that Paul believes his argument HERE accounts for the larger question behind chapters 9-11, that being, What is to account for the widespread rejection of the gospel on the part of Israel and the widespread acceptance of it by Gentiles and does this suggest God has been unfaithful to his promise to the Jews.

Verse 7 is pretty absolute in it’s reference to “THE” elect. Are there Calvinists who actually claim this is NOT the Elect (big “E”), unconditionally and irrevocably chosen by God? Paul moves pretty seamlessly from THIS elect and hardened group to the Olive tree and on to the notion of the remnant. Exegetically I don’t see how one could distinguish between two sets of “elect” and “hardened” individuals as she interprets her way through the wider context. If it’s granted that these elect and hardened are THE Elect and Hardened, then how are we to avoid the conclusion that membership in these groups is reversible AND conditional?

Lion-Lamb, Sproul, Piper, Ware, Geisler, others, are you guys looking on? Come on. I really want to hear from you on this. We know at least that some of you are watching. Come on, jump in. Help me out! Ben Musclow? Wanna speak for them? I want to see the best explanation Calvinists can muster for this. Hit me hard baby!

Tom




Edited by - TGB on 02/23/2002 11:36:41 PM

Edited by - TGB on 02/23/2002 11:58:58 PM