Predestination

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind.

Where does paul say that ?

 

[savedbygrace57]

vince:

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 3

There is no such thing as innocent men rom 3:

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

[smaller]

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind. The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

There are many principles deployed with Jacob/Esau. In Romans 9 they are used to show parabolically the principle of vessels of honor/dishonor. Both men fwiw had BOTH but one was raised to show Gods Favor and the other raised to explain EVIL PRESENT which is also within all men. God actually raises both vessels in each man on this present earth. To see past the flesh one must follow the logic of Paul from earlier in Romans, particular chapter 7 where he defines himself in the same way. In Romans 9 he shows the same principle on himself in Jacob/Esau and Pharaoh, and sums this up in Romans 11 showing the spirit of stupor is THE OTHER VESSEL that was put upon Israel. Few understand these matters because that same vessel of dishonor, EVIL PRESENT, keeps this from being perceived. When one is not honest about themselves as Paul was, they will never completely understand his depictions nor are they meant to. God has not yet raised the vessel of honor to SEE the facts 'yet.'

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:

There is not even a HINT of Jacob/Esau being 'nations' IN Romans 9, though your citing from the O.T. is also relevant, but not in the way you see. The EVIL PRESENT is the older vessel. DEVILS have been on the earth much longer than nearly all mankind and are therefore OLDER. But to see them we are given physical depictions.

The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.

Flesh eyes can only see these matters as PEOPLE only. The text is far more interesting when the EVIL PRESENT is put on the table. That can not be seen, but people who know that the Devil puts temptation or sin thoughts in their mind MAY eventually be led to see they are not alone in their wills and when they ADMIT that fact, then the other vessel IN THEIR MIND and HEART starts to come into view in the text. Only God can lead a person into these facts.

Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?"

So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight.

I am quite assured that vessel of dishonor will NOT be receiving ANY mercy, but will ALL be in the Lake of Fire in the finality of judgments.

If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other.

You have a more accurate view above and right before your eyes and it is NOT mancentric. But you more than likely will not be able to see it. The spirit of stupor can not allow itself to be perceived in the 'victims.' Only God can 'elect' any person 'at the present time' to see.

If you saw it this way you'd know it's not about saved man vs. condemned to hell man, but man and devil.

The evil present with Paul and the devil that was put upon him was assuredly A VESSEL OF DISHONOR and WILL be heading to HELL for a certain fact, as they are PREDESTINED to go there. There is NO WAY OUT for this conclusion for THEM.

What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election?

You have a very fleshly oriented view. I don't blame you for that and I understand why.

Devils do serve Gods Purposes for CONDEMNATION, JUDGMENTS AND EVENTUALLY WRATH and finally HELL. That's the way it is. There is no changing of these matters.

And please, unless you are led to get even a half way resonable grap of an alternative view, you can spare me a response. I wouldn't trade our views for anything. And I've seen the produce of yours already. Jew bashing is out of bounds and off limits conversation for me. I am commanded to love all my neighbors as myself and God has given me no options in this matter.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[smaller]

vince:

There is no such thing as innocent men rom 3:

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Every mouth, even believers and all the world IS guilty because ALL have evil present. The sin of everyone is 'of the devil.' The LAW is against the LAWLESS ONE who is SATAN.

 

[Drew]

vince:



Both of you are deceived, Jacob abd Esau were individuals, the children of Isaac rom 9:

No we are not deceived - we are simply taking Paul seriously in terms of the texts he quotes here. When you follow those texts up from the Old Testament - such as the Malachi reference, one can read that the real issue is nations, not the individuals.

I have been over this with you many times in this and other forums. Why do you insist on over-ruling Paul, by not taking seriously the texts he draws on, and deciding for yourself that this is a text of the eternal fates of these two, even though the Old Testament references point to a nation-level interpretation?

At the end of the day, this is about respecting Paul and letting him tell us what he is trying to tell us. If talks about an election in respect to Esau and Jacob, and quotes from texts which talk about a nation springing from one serving the nation springing from the other, why is ignored by so many? Do you think you can decide that Paul does not really intend to evoke the nation-level dimension when he quotes from those texts?

And even if this is an "individual" level reading, Paul tells us what the "election" was about - it was that the one would serve the other.

How does "Esau will serve Jacob" get transformed into "Esau is pre-destined to hell, and Jacob pre-destined to heaven"?

 

[Drew]

There are many principles deployed with Jacob/Esau. In Romans 9 they are used to show parabolically the principle of vessels of honor/dishonor.

I disagree with you - I think the Esau / Jacob example is provided as one of a series of examples about God having the general right to choose. I cannot provide the relevant case in this one post, but will point out that at least the possibility that Paul considers neither Esau or Jacob as a "vessel" of either kind, but simply is establishing the general point that God has the right to choose in support of then asserting that God has the right to choose one set of people to be vessels of destruction and another set to be vessels of mercy.

In short, there is no logical necessity that Esau or Jacob belong to either category of vessel.

And I've seen the produce of yours already. Jew bashing is out of bounds and off limits conversation for me. I am commanded to love all my neighbors as myself and God has given me no options in this matter

An outrageous slur that is beneath contempt.

I have reported you before and I have reported you again. Such patently false maligning of poster's character is not acceptable. I have never posted anything that any reasonable person could construe as "Jew-bashing".

 

[Drew]

Both men fwiw had BOTH but one was raised to show Gods Favor and the other raised to explain EVIL PRESENT which is also within all men.

What textual evidence can you provide that Paul brings up Esau in order "to explain the evil that is present in all men".

I see no such explanation in Romans 9.

God actually raises both vessels in each man on this present earth. To see past the flesh one must follow the logic of Paul from earlier in Romans, particular chapter 7 where he defines himself in the same way. In Romans 9 he shows the same principle on himself in Jacob/Esau and Pharaoh, and sums this up in Romans 11 showing the spirit of stupor is THE OTHER VESSEL that was put upon Israel.

What "other vessel"? Where do you see a vessel being "put on" Israel?

Few understand these matters because that same vessel of dishonor, EVIL PRESENT, keeps this from being perceived. When one is not honest about themselves as Paul was, they will never completely understand his depictions nor are they meant to. God has not yet raised the vessel of honor to SEE the facts 'yet.'

How is this relevant to my pointing out that there is no evidence at all, in the actual text, that the Jacob / Esau example is raised as an example of God electing these individuals to an eternal fate?

Where is the actual textual evidence that Paul is making this point. I take Paul as I read him - the election in question was for one to serve the other, not so that one goes to heaven and one to hell. And when you read the Old Testament texts to which Paul alludes, it becomes clear that he (Paul) is realy making a point about God "electing" the nation of Edom to be subservient to the nation of Israel.

Which we know, from history, is precisely what happened.

There is not even a HINT of Jacob/Esau being 'nations' IN Romans 9, though your citing from the O.T. is also relevant, but not in the way you see.

True - until you look at the Old Testament texts from which Paul is quoting. They are texts from Genesis and from Malachi - both of which are clearly about God's selection of nations. Paul is using Esau and Jacob to represent the nations that spring from them.

The EVIL PRESENT is the older vessel. DEVILS have been on the earth much longer than nearly all mankind and are therefore OLDER. But to see them we are given physical depictions.

Again, what textual evidence can you provide that Paul is making some kind of point about devils and the evil present in Esau? All my Bible says is that God chose one to serve the other and "hated" the one and loved the other. But, when we examine the Malachi text that Paul is quoting, we see that this really about God treating nations differently.

Flesh eyes can only see these matters as PEOPLE only. The text is far more interesting when the EVIL PRESENT is put on the table. That can not be seen, but people who know that the Devil puts temptation or sin thoughts in their mind MAY eventually be led to see they are not alone in their wills and when they ADMIT that fact, then the other vessel IN THEIR MIND and HEART starts to come into view in the text. Only God can lead a person into these facts.

I see no evidence at all in Romans 9, or in the texts that Paul quotes in Romans, that he is engaged in an analysis of evil. Nor do I see any reason to believe that Paul has this idea people have "another vessel in their mind". Where are you getting such ideas?

 

[Drew]

Further to this outrageous suggestion that I am engaged in "Jew-bashing":

I have indeed been arguing that Paul is telling us that Jews were hardened. This should not be controversial - Paul clearly says so right here in Romans 11. I double-dog dare anyone to suggest that it is not clear beyond doubt that Paul is specifically talking about Jews here:

What then? What (K)Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were (L)hardened; 8just as it is written,
"(M)GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR,
EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT,
DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."

Paul has just told us about a remnant of Jews who are saved. And then he tells us that the rest of Jews - clearly a majority of Jews were, yes hardened. There is no doubt - the ones who were given a "stupor" from God are those members of Israel - who did not obtain the salvation the remnant did.

So if anyone does not "like" to think that God has, at least at one point in history, hardened some Jews, I suggest that the objector take the matter up with Paul - it is his idea, not mine.

In any event to suggest that I am "Jew-bashing" by simply replaying what Paul is saying is akin to saying that to say someone is "Jesus-bashing" when one says that Jesus bears our sin.

In my years here, I have been subject to a number of outrageous and false accusations. But to suggest - twice no less - that I am "Jew-bashing" has to rank in the top 5.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew again:

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind.

Where does paul say that ?

 

[Drew]

drew again:



Where does paul say that ?

This is your famous tactic.

There is no textual evidence that the eternal fate of Esau or Jacob is what the described election of these two is all about.

Paul tells us what the election is about - that one will serve the other.

What justification do you have for adding to what Paul has written?

 

[smaller]

An outrageous slur that is beneath contempt.

I have reported you before and I have reported you again. Such patently false maligning of poster's character is not acceptable. I have never posted anything that any reasonable person could construe as "Jew-bashing".

Who are you kidding? You have presented on this forum MANY TIMES that God elects to harden unbelieving Jews only. It is no slur on my part to state what you do and HOW I view that practice.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

This is your famous tactic.

And yours is making a statement about pauls thinking that you cannot prove with scripture.

The whole letter of romans is about salvation to individuals rom 1:


15So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

So please show us where paul says as you assert :

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind.

Dont expect me or anyone to believe a statement like that just on you stating it.

 

[savedbygrace57]

smaller:

Who are you kidding? You have presented on this forum MANY TIMES that God elects to harden unbelieving Jews only.

Which statement is bogus.

In the very setting of context of rom 9 Paul declares that God hardens whom He wills, ethnicity is not even a issue.

rom 9:

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Also, the very person that is referred to as an object of hardening was a non jew[gentile], a egyptian:


17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[Drew]

Who are you kidding? You have presented on this forum MANY TIMES that God elects to harden unbelieving Jews only. It is no slur on my part to state what you do and HOW I view that practice.

Indeed, but pointing out that Paul says that some Jews have been hardened is simply not Jew-bashing! We agree that Pharaoh was hardened by God.

What - does this make an "Egyptian-basher"?

Moderators -please address this. Is it acceptable for posters to accuse others, falsely of course, of being a "Jew-basher" simply for acknowledging what any scholar who can p*** in a pot will tell you - Romans 11 describes the "hardening" of some Jews at some point in history.

 

[Drew]

drew:



And yours is making a statement about pauls thinking that you cannot prove with scripture.

The whole letter of romans is about salvation to individuals rom 1:


15So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

This is hardly the text to support your point. Paul says the gospel is the power unto salvation. The gospel is not, as many believe - the good news that you can be saved by faith in Jesus. It is the news that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, who in virtue of being raised from the dead, has been constituted as the Lord of the whole world. Salvation is one of the consequences or outworkings of the gospel, but it is not the gospel itself.

So please show us where paul says as you assert :

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind.

Dont expect me or anyone to believe a statement like that just on you stating it.

This is simply bad logic and you have a long, and I mean long history of making logic-defying statements like this.

When I said that the eternal status of these guys is not on Paul's mind, this was my way of saying "there is no textual evidence to support the notion that their salvation is what Paul is writing about"

Asking to provide a "proof" that Paul was "not thinking about their salvation" is like demanding me to prove, from Romans 9, that Esau's favourite flavour of ice cream was not on Paul's mind.

How could I possibly demonstrate this? Is Paul going to write down everything that he is not thinking about whenever he makes a statement?

 

[Drew]

smaller:



Which statement is bogus.

In the very setting of context of rom 9 Paul declares that God hardens whom He wills, ethnicity is not even a issue.

Ethnicity clearly is an issue in Romans 11 - repeatedly in that chapter, Paul makes statement about Jews in particular being "sent a stupor", "broken off". Whether you or smaller like it or not, it is clear that, in Romans 11 at the very least, it is God's "hardening" of Jews that is on the table. Am I the only one here who is actually reading what Paul actually writes?

Now I believe that the "vessels of destruction" in Romans 9 are the same hardened Jews.

57, you should acknowledge the possibility that, in chapter 9, Paul saying "since God has the right to harden whomever He wants to, I, Paul, am saying that He hardened the nation of Israel (most of them, anyway) so that the entire world can benefit.

Which is, of course, precisely what he is saying in Chapter 11 in statements like this:

Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles,

The "they" here is, by context, a reference to a sub-set of Jews (those who are not part of the remnant).

 

[savedbygrace57]

what does rom 9:12 really mean in the context of salvation and individual election ?

Whenever I come across an explanation for any given subject in the word of truth, its appropiate to give credit where credit is due, however, all truth and understanding comes from God.

Here is the biblical explanation of rom 9:12 a portion out of the writings of we best writings on the book of romans:

The Most Neglected Chapter In The Bible (Romans 9)

Individual Election Demonstrated ​

Esau and Jacob, the two sons of Isaac and Rebecca, demonstrate God's election of one and His passing by the other (Rom. 9:9-13). God chose Jacob, and He passed by Esau.

This is individual, not national, election. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Scripture does not state that He loved Esau less than He loved Jacob.

God could love nothing in Jacob above Esau but His own grace which He gave Jacob before the world began. There is no difference between any Christian and any nonchristian other than God gave the Christian grace before the world began.

The reason many dislike this truth is because they do not understand grace. God has given grace to everyone He chose in Christ before the world began (II Tim. 1:9). This is why God loves those He chose with an everlasting love.

Esau was the older son, and Jacob was the younger. A new history began with the generations of Isaac (Gen. 25:19). This is a new chapter in the exercise of faith in connection with the promises of God. Like Isaac and Rebecca, believers must be constantly reminded that we are not debtors to the flesh in any way (Rom. 8:12). Paul continually gave his flesh severe treatment to bring it under subjection (I Cor. 9:20-27). At every step, God's people are shut up to faith. Isaac, Abraham's son, entreated the Lord for his barren wife, Rebecca. The Lord heard him and Rebecca conceived.

The twins within her womb jostled one another (Gen. 25:22). Rebecca perceived that the conflict did not arise from natural causes. This was a little early in the pregnancy, was it not? But do not forget how John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elisabeth's womb when he heard that Mary would give birth to Jesus Christ. Rebecca felt more than mere movement of the fetus. The conflict in Rebecca's womb was an early conflict for mastery. The natural mind cannot understand this early strife between Esau and Jacob. They were already depraved. The strife in the womb continued until the time of birth and extended further than these two persons.

Rebecca became disturbed over the prenatal conflict and enquired of the Lord concerning it. Before her conception, Rebecca was troubled for the want of children. Her anguish now was the conflict between her children before they were born. The comforts we desire often bring with them trouble and anxiety. Believers are prone to be discontented with blessings because of the troubles the blessings bring. The Lord answered Rebecca's inquiry: "And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger" (Gen. 25:23). (Study Matt. 21:43; I Pet. 2:9.) God in His eternal purpose destined Rebecca to bring forth two nations or two manner of people. This was the reason for her living.

The Lord affirmed that the order of nature would be reversed by the older son serving the younger. The firstborn child always had access to the inheritance and was given a greater portion of the inheritance. He had certain authority in the family that those younger did not have. But in this case, the order was reversed.

Esau was the firstborn but he would serve his younger brother. There is a spiritual lesson in this for us. We were all in Adam by physical birth. When we were born again, we became new creatures in Christ Jesus; and the new nature controls the old nature.

The births of Esau and Jacob were as extraordinary as their conflict in Rebecca's womb. Esau was the first to be born. He represents what we are by nature as the children of Adam. Jacob represents what we are by the election of God's grace. Regeneration is the consequence of election.

The birthright was Esau's by providence, not by God's eternal purpose. The birthright was Jacob's not by inheritance but by promise. As the firstborn, Esau had the right of the first child--first place in the home and a double portion of the father's inheritance (Deut. 21:17). This was a kind of supremacy over one's brethren and his father's house (Gen. 27:29). The conflict continued in their births because Jacob seized his brother by the heel in an attempt to get out before Esau (Gen. 25:26).

Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the world. Jacob was a plain man dwelling in tents. Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his venison, but Rebecca loved Jacob. Esau and Jacob were two different persons. The Lord testified by Esau's being firstborn that the effect of His election does not immediately appear, but rather that the intervening path was filled with troubles and conflicts.
Jacob was chosen by the sovereign God before his birth, even with all the contemptible faults which lay in his character. God chooses whom He will according to His good pleasure. The whole human race deserves the same destruction. The only difference between men rests solely in the will of God and not in any distinction in the persons of men. No man spiritually excels another by means of his own virtue.

Two nations and two manner of people were spoken of in the prophecy (Gen. 25:23). But Paul applied this to two individuals--Esau and Jacob--not to their posterities (Rom. 9:11-13).

Moses made the application to the whole seed of Jacob, but Paul turned the words into a particular election. Esau and Jacob were not partakers of the same calling. A general call goes forth to all, but there is an effectual call to the elect.

For this reason, one person responds to the truth; and another rejects and despises it. Paul contended in his argument that not all who descend from Isaac according to the flesh are true Israelites.

According to His own good pleasure, God chooses whom He will to be saved. Every person He has chosen will be quickened by the Holy Spirit, thus enabling him to embrace the gospel in a saving experience.

Disclaimer:

Even though I endorse this segment of Mr Best understanding of romans 9, I cannot say I endorse all his teachings without exception on any given subject !

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

Ethnicity clearly is an issue in Romans 11

Yes it is, but only in regards to pointing out that ethnic jews alone are not the Israel that God saves, and salvation of individuals is still the topic, of which you deny in rom 9, you cannot make up your mind can you ?

 

[Drew]

drew:



Yes it is, but only in regards to pointing out that ethnic jews alone are not the Israel that God saves, and salvation of individuals is still the topic, of which you deny in rom 9, you cannot make up your mind can you ?

Bad logic yet again. You assume that I believe what you believe and then read me as being self-contradictory, based on that assumption.

 

[smaller]

Ethnicity clearly is an issue in Romans 11 - repeatedly in that chapter, Paul makes statement about Jews in particular being "sent a stupor", "broken off". Whether you or smaller like it or not, it is clear that, in Romans 11 at the very least, it is God's "hardening" of Jews that is on the table. Am I the only one here who is actually reading what Paul actually writes?

Drew, we have mutually examined this issue, and you are in a wild circle of logic, on one hand stating, knowing and admitting that God hardens both JEW and GENTILE, yet you land on unbelieving Jew hardening ONLY when in both Romans 9 and 11 there are clearly NON Jews hardened as well as that possibility to ANY believer. So you are merely in an unsupportable circle of illogicial nonsense.

Now I believe that the "vessels of destruction" in Romans 9 are the same hardened Jews.

And we are clearly presented with TWO NON-JEWS as examples in Romans 9, that being Pharaoh and Esau. Your theory is unsupportable.

57, you should acknowledge the possibility that, in chapter 9, Paul saying "since God has the right to harden whomever He wants to,

I've already accepted that fact, as have you. Yet you insist on the 'unbelieving Jews' only, which is openly NOT the case. The hardening is clearly shown to NON-JEWS and also to the potential of hardening of ANY believer.

I, Paul, am saying that He hardened the nation of Israel (most of them, anyway) so that the entire world can benefit.

I don't disagree that Paul shows the principle of hardening to Jews, but that is NOT all that is shown. So it cannot logically be unbelieving Jews only. Paul showed the same principle of hardening to ANY who do not believe the Gospel in 2 Cor. 4:4 by their BLINDING by the 'god of this world.' Again, not unbeliving Jews only.

As to the vessels of dishonor being also with believers, I have pointed out the condition Paul gave himself, that of EVIL PRESENT and A DEVIL, the devil clearly being a vessel of DISHONOR with Paul. And the example of Paul in stating that believers must PURGE themselves from being a VESSEL OF DISHONOUR (Paul was NOT THE SAME as his EVIL PRESENT or that DEVIL with him) in 2 Tim. 2:20-21 and 1 Cor. 15 where Paul states that 'we' are in fact planted in DISHONOUR. So there is no escaping the DISHONOUR measure for believers. We are in fact planted into these matters as well as the unbelieving Jew or Gentile.

So why you insist that unbelieving JEWS ONLY are hardened will RIGHTFULLY seem as JEW BASHING to me, as I am very familiar with anti-semetic spirits.

Which is, of course, precisely what he is saying in Chapter 11 in statements like this:
Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles,

The "they" here is, by context, a reference to a sub-set of Jews (those who are not part of the remnant).

You are simply text plucking on Jews 'only' when there are just as many for GENTILE and even BELIEVER hardening. You admit the hardening of Gentiles as well, yet STILL insist it is an unbelieving JEWS matter ONLY. It is in short a ridiculous set of claims on your part.

s