Excerpt: The Potter’s House 8/4/2013
“Romans 9-11, especially chapter 11, is perhaps the most difficult in the Bible to preach on because there is nothing to study—it is what it is. However, it supplies a basic interpretive framework from which the rest of the Bible is interpreted. Salvation begins with the Jews and their King, and ends with the Jews and their King. The Reformed rejection of Israel’s election by the sultans of election displays the kind of confusion that transpires when you rebel against God’s revealed choices. The Reformers criticize the Jews for rejecting the Messiah while downplaying the remnant of Israel. Meanwhile, they arrogantly inform Christ that they accept Him, but not His chosen people. In chapter 11, Paul makes the eternal standing of those who posit such ambiguous at best.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Peter said Paul was hard to understand. I think you misunderstand Paul.
LikeLike
….basically, how does one get around the fact that Peter vouched for Paul’s apostleship?
LikeLike
This is an interesting take on it, considering Paul does say the natural branches were “cut off” from the tree and the Gentiles “grafted in.” Vaunt not thyselves against the natural branches — sure he says that. But he means only because they were cut off for not believing and you were graft in because you believe. He isn’t rejecting replacement theology here. I WISH HE WAS. IF PAUL REALLY HAD REJECTED IT, IT WOULD BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL. But its Paul (one of them) that says the Jews “both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:” (1 Thessalonians 2:15) There’s your standard antisemitic antijewish spew right there, and one of the Pauls wrote that.
However, I do find something of interest in what you say. You mention that “The Reformers criticize the Jews for rejecting the Messiah while downplaying the remnant of Israel.”
One of the Pauls does indeed mention a remnant. But its easily interpreted away as if he meant only that the Jews who left Judaism and converted to Christianity are the remnant. I wish, oh how I wish, that he had made it clear he meant a remnant of actual Jews who did not convert and capitulate. But he didn’t, and so not many people will be convinced that it means this. The phrase “they please not God, and are contrary to all men” is very harsh, and anyone who buys that this is the inerrant word of God, will be a hateful neo-Nazi son of a gun. I’d hate to meet the person that truly believes 1 Thessalonians 2:15 in a dark alley. They might think my big snoz is a Jewish one and hack me to pieces. The Pauline epistles can be dangerous stuff.
LikeLike
I do not find the Pauline epistles at all hard to understand and nor do I find them dangerous. It is man who has distorted the teachings of Paul. I just leave it to the teacher – the Holy Spirit to teach and that He does.
LikeLike
T4H,
This is why the Reformers claim Paul as their hero. It’s cover for the fact that their gospel is grossly antithetical to Pauline theology. Not only are Paul’s writings part of the authentic canon, it is the only answer to Reformed theology. It gives the average Christian what they need to understand the issue. No other writers address the law/gospel issue to the degree Paul does. This alone is very authenticating.
LikeLike
Maybe no other writer addresses the issue because there isn’t an issue. Christ’s cross need not demolish the Law at all, considering it takes the place of the sacrifices. When he becomes the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, why must that demolish the non-sacrificial aspects of the Law? Its illogical to say that it would. His sacrifice means only that Christians don’t have to run to the temple to offer a sacrifice every time they sin and repent — instead they only pray to God invoking his once for all sacrifice. Paul couldn’t get this simple logic, so he makes it uber complicated with his false dichotomy between Law/Gospel, Faith/Works.
LikeLike
James,
The continual invoking of Christ’s sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins in order to maintain our just standing is Reformed theology.
LikeLike
“I would never call Piper a beloved brother because he teaches a false gospel.”
You wouldn’t but your average Arminian Baptist pastor in the SBC would.
“The continual invoking of Christ’s sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins in order to maintain our just standing is Reformed theology.”
I’m not convinced this is the case at all. Maybe you could find some ignored statement about it in the Westminster confession, but they don’t really believe it. And even if the Presbyterians believed it to some small extent, the Calvinist Baptists don’t.
Besides that, they would mean invoking Jesus’ sacrifice in the sense of “Jesus died, so now I don’t have to obey any commandments at all even in sanctification” whereas I mean simply if you commit a big sin, pray for forgiveness. Its not the same. The one is a way to avoid repentance, the other emphasizing its importance.
LikeLike
James,
You are absolutely right: most Calvinists don’t understand what Calvin really taught. But the New Calvinists do. They have Calvin right. That’s why there are many Calvinists I would call brother but not any NC. Obedience in sanctification is purely from love because we have nothing to gain for it in regard to justification. NC says you must live by faith alone in sanctification to keep your justification. Those are ill motives. The motive is not love, it’s to keep your just standing. It’s staying nailed to the cross in order to keep our salvation. In contrast, the thief on the cross readily recognized that he was going to be with Jesus in paradise that day, but if Christ had released him from that cross, he would have loved Christ with everything in him by obeying everything Christ commanded.
LikeLike
“….basically, how does one get around the fact that Peter vouched for Paul’s apostleship?”
Since when does “beloved brother” = “fellow apostle”??? If I were to call an errant person like Piper a “beloved brother” would it imply that I’m calling him an apostle or vouching for his false doctrines?? Especially if I were to call him a “beloved brother” while warning you against taking his writings too seriously??
LikeLike
James,
I would never call Piper a beloved brother because he teaches a false gospel.
LikeLike