An alternate exegesis of Romans 9:6-29

[Mercy_Shown]

Post 6, 7, and 8 contain no scripture, and therefore no exegesis. The title of this thread states...

We're all waiting.

That is not exegesis. Some of those statements are true and correct but they are not exegetically demonstrated to be so.

LOL!

That is Calvinism in a nutshell! Salvation does not depend on how a person acts (or wills) but on God, God's choice, God's purpose and God's will.

Who are “we?” And when will you address the content?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Then the correct response is, "That is correct, Josh. What you posted is 100% correct and I completely agree."

And then you explain how that is an "alternative exegesis."

Because if we agree then it is not an alternative exegesis .

Hmmm... but you are going to use the collective application to argue Calvinist soteriology is incorrect? ..... when Calvinist soteriology says absolutely nothing about collective salvation from sin? Is that what we're supposed to understand?

You are trying too hard, I have no problem with the way John Calvin's views on salvation. If you can slow down and relax a bit we can have a good conversation.

I am an all eyes and ears. I cannot wait to read that exegesis, but I have to say, so far, this thread isn't anywhere close to making that case and it looks like a very poor choice was made picking Romans 9 for that purpose. If Paul's point is a collective application and Calvinism says nothing about collective salvation you are arguing a red herring.

You have not yet grasped what I am arguing.

 

[Josheb]

And yet we all do including you. Sure, you may not admit it and you may not even be aware of it. But no matter how we intellectualize it or rationalize it we come up with ways of favoring certain passages and explaining away inconvenient ones.

Exegesis.

Post some exegesis.

Who are “we?” And when will you address the content?

Exegesis. Post some exegesis and refrain from any and all attempts to shift the onus from this op onto others, especially in light of the fact - the evidence everyone can read - a survey of Romans leading up to chapter 9, a sampling of Israel's definition, the covenant aspects of Romans 9, and the eschatological nature of the text where all posted in addition to a refutation of the claim the primary reason for the letter was to unify the Gentile and Jews.

It's not my op and I have already done more than you.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Then do not make mistakes, make assumptions, define God apart from scripture, or try to convince anyone of your opinion when you have stated this is supposed to be an exegesis.

Perhaps, but the onus is on you to prove that and prove it with an exegesis of Romans 9:6-28.

As far as exegesis goes, very little is in evidence. Surely, something better than "I think..." and "It seems to me..." can be posted because those are both antitheses of exegesis.

I am finding it difficult to converse with you. You seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time critiquing and little time discussing function.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I posted scripture and I posted scripture that scripture itself connects. I did not "extend, " "overextend," or "metaphor" anything on my own. What scripture plainly states will be accepted or it won't. The facts are exactly as I posted.

• Jacob is the first person called Israel.
• The name "Israel" means "God perseveres."
• The Hebrews were not called "Israel" until long after Jacob had died and long after they'd left Egypt.
• Matthew, not Josheb, connected Hosea 1:11 to Jesus and thereby called him Israel.
• Paul explicitly stated not all Israel is Israel and he defined the Israel that is Israel.
• Paul also explicitly stated a remnant would be saved.

I did not add to or subtract one word from any of those texts. I simply brought them to everyone's attention because those are what Paul was drawing from. Paul, the former Pharisee indwelt with God's Spirit, surely did. Either prove the points incorrect or accept them as correct and true.

Sigh. you did not understand my response. I did not question the texts or the scriptures you quoted. In very simple terms I was saying that Jesus is not always the same as Isreal in every instance. To say that would be overextending the metaphor in Matthew used when quoting only part of Hosea 11:1.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Perhaps, but the onus is on you to prove that and prove it with an exegesis of Romans 9:6-28.

As far as exegesis goes, very little is in evidence. Surely, something better than "I think..." and "It seems to me..." can be posted because those are both antitheses of exegesis.

I would suggest expanding your theological definitions by going beyond a theological-terms dictionary. You should be able to distinguish the exegesis portion of my OP from the other portions since I labeled it. Exegesis does not exclude the terms "I think..." and "It seems to me..." unless one is omnipotent. Exegesis is not a legal brief. It is a critical explanation of a text which gives one a bit of latitude.

My intent was not to prove anything but to offer possible alternates to the conclusions you drew.

 

[Josheb]

You are trying too hard,........... You have not yet grasped...........

Ad hominem.

It is way too easy for the sinful nature still in us to speak out harshly with judgment and then rationalize it as a virtue than it is to treat our opponents with kindness. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

Yep, and ad hominem is a deplorable example of that very thing.

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

There are two dozen posts and very little exegesis. Is this the way you discuss theological differences?


If you perceive readers have not understood something (always a dubious assumption) then it is always best to assume the problem lies in a lack of clarification, not a lack in others' comprehension. Log, not speck. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt even though I think you should start over, use scripture to explain how and why Paul arrived at verse 6, and then proceed verse by verse without ever mentioning Calvinism, any poster, or anything but scripture.

Verse 6-8: Paul begins by addressing the apparent discrepancy between God's promises to Israel and the reality that not all physical descendants of Israel are part of God's chosen people.

Aside from the fact Paul's "beginning" is a few verses earlier (as I described in a prior post), let's s look again at what verses 6-8 state.

Romans 9:6-9
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

• Paul did not "begin" with a "But." The "But...." is an indication his words are an ongoing part of something previously begun. Therefore, exegetically speaking, the first part of your first portion of "exegesis" is incorrect.
• The word "apparent" is a speculation. It might be correct if some explanation proving the "apparent," but that does not exist here. That is not exegesis.
• What verse 6 does state is the word of God hadn't failed. The implication is that some had thought God's word had failed, otherwise there is no reason for Paul to address the matter. The question begged is "What word?" God's word is quite lengthy so which of His words was thought to have failed? This is answered with, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” The "word" is God's promise to Abraham. This is a direct reference to Genesis 17:19-21 and Genesis 21. No exegesis of Romans 9 can happen without first looking at those OT texts and this op has failed to do that.
• Once the Genesis texts are read it becomes apparent the promises were not made to Israel. Big, huge, ginormous error in exegesis. Not once does the Romans 9 text state anything about promises made to Israel but the Genesis passages are clear. Paul is writing about promises made to Abraham. That is why Paul moved from Israel to "children of Abraham." The "word" thought to have failed was the promise made to Abe about his son, Isaac.
• Departing only for a moment from the Romans 9 text we know from Galatians 3 that the promises were made to Abraham and Jesus, not nation-state Israel. Galatians 3 explicitly states the promises were made to Abraham and his seed and the seed is singular (not plural), and the seed is Jesus. The promises were made to Abraham and Jesus. The promise was Isaac (not Ishmael) would be the offspring bearing his name. Paul then clarifies this to explain the promise is NOT for children of the flesh. It is to the children of promise to whom the word promised Abraham (and Jesus) applies.
• I have already covered the eschatological content leading up to chapter 9 so I will not repeat it although it applies to "About this time next year I will return...." because in the OT precedent Abraham waited more than a decade before the original promise of a son was made and God reiterated the promise and left again to return later when the promise was fulfilled. The same had happened in the NT. The promised son had come (and gone) and as a consequence tribulation and judgment was pending.

It is coming. God's word has NOT failed. All of you - both Gentile and Jew - need to get your acts together because God is impartial. These are things the Romans text actually states, not eisegetic inferences made based on pre-existing doctrinal biases.

Your "exegesis" of verse 6-8 is not exegesis at all. It's rather shoddy. The only part you got correct is that not all "physical" descendants are chosen. How you got there is the shoddy part.

 

[Josheb]

Sigh. you did not understand my response. I did not question the texts or the scriptures you quoted. In very simple terms I was saying that Jesus is not always the same as Isreal in every instance. To say that would be overextending the metaphor in Matthew used when quoting only part of Hosea 11:1.

I would suggest expanding your theological definitions by going beyond a theological-terms dictionary. You should be able to distinguish the exegesis portion of my OP from the other portions since I labeled it. Exegesis does not exclude the terms "I think..." and "It seems to me..." unless one is omnipotent. Exegesis is not a legal brief. It is a critical explanation of a text which gives one a bit of latitude.

Exegesis. Post an exegesis.

My intent was not to prove anything but to offer possible alternates to the conclusions you drew.

So far that intent is poorly realized.

Without first going to Google or checking some other source, can you extemporaneously list six basic rules of exegesis? How about five? Three? If so, then please do so now. Thx

 

[Mercy_Shown]

That does not change the fact that two opposing views are not equally valid. They may both be wrong, but they cannot both be right. What determines which one is what God means or whether He means something else entirely, is when it is weighted against the whole counsel of God,and that in the best case scenario should be done in a systematic way: comparing all scriptures on the same topic, and keeping them also consistent with who God reveals Himself to be.

This is rarely done without people explaining away the texts that do not fit their scenario. And I do mean all people of all views. No one is a righteous authority. And we all should be eternally Grateful for God's condescension toward us.

For example, if God shows us in the creation account that He created all that is, that He established boundaries for His creation, as we see in day and night (time), and created those boundaries, and created it all from nothing, then we know that He alone is eternal and self existent. We know from this account that He sustains all things that He creates, and that nothing exists or has purpose or life, except in Him. He owns it all, it belongs to Him. If He tells us again, and again, that He is sovereign over all of it, sovereign over mankind, the storms, the seas, the hearts of men, that He does whatever it is His pleasure and will to do in accomplishing His purpose, then no doctrine we derive from His word can violate or infringe upon, or diminish this. That is step one. And one cannot give an interpretation of Romans 9 as being about individuals, as you correctly do in the OP, and then later say, as you did, no it is about nations. And one cannot correctly identify those verses as saying God always does according to His will and no one can talk back to Him, as you did, and at the same constantly talk back to Him if He does not allow man's will to supercede His. And also say that it does.

You lay a false charge at my door. God forbid that I ever talk back to him. Disagreeing with Calvin's interpretation of God's Grace is not talking back to God. Sometimes we are so intense about what we believe we cannot hear what someone else is saying. You are always bringing up God's sovereignty which I have always fully acknowledged but some how you do not hear that acknowledgement.

You hear me intimate that man's will superceds Gods and yet I do not say that nor do I believe it. Somehow you are hearing meanings in what I say that were never intended by me.

We cannot derive a truthful doctrine by simply making something up

Humans make up "truthful" doctrines all the time. Everyone thinks that their doctrines are the truthful ones or else they would not adopt them. Everyone has their texts to support their "truthful" doctrines. We cannot get into the real meat of this until we stop and listen to eachother.

, such as in order for him to be loving and fair He chooses to give His will over to the will of man.I find that particularly disturbing when it comes to sending His Son to the cross, mostly in futility. We cannot make up a doctrine that says that He did this, and make up a reason for Him doing so. If He did that, He would tell us plainly, instead of telling us the opposite. We must make our doctrines fit God, not God fit our doctrines.

Where did you get this from?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Exegesis. Post an exegesis.

So far that intent is poorly realized.

Without first going to Google or checking some other source, can you extemporaneously list six basic rules of exegesis? How about five? Three? If so, then please do so now. Thx

You are simply one who dodges the issues by trying to appear learned, but it is quite a transparent effort. If you ever want to get serious let me know.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Ad hominem.

Yep, and ad hominem is a deplorable example of that very thing.

There are two dozen posts and very little exegesis. Is this the way you discuss theological differences?


If you perceive readers have not understood something (always a dubious assumption) then it is always best to assume the problem lies in a lack of clarification, not a lack in others' comprehension. Log, not speck. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt even though I think you should start over, use scripture to explain how and why Paul arrived at verse 6, and then proceed verse by verse without ever mentioning Calvinism, any poster, or anything but scripture.

Aside from the fact Paul's "beginning" is a few verses earlier (as I described in a prior post), let's s look again at what verses 6-8 state.

Romans 9:6-9
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

• Paul did not "begin" with a "But." The "But...." is an indication his words are an ongoing part of something previously begun. Therefore, exegetically speaking, the first part of your first portion of "exegesis" is incorrect.
• The word "apparent" is a speculation. It might be correct if some explanation proving the "apparent," but that does not exist here. That is not exegesis.
• What verse 6 does state is the word of God hadn't failed. The implication is that some had thought God's word had failed, otherwise there is no reason for Paul to address the matter. The question begged is "What word?" God's word is quite lengthy so which of His words was thought to have failed? This is answered with, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” The "word" is God's promise to Abraham. This is a direct reference to Genesis 17:19-21 and Genesis 21. No exegesis of Romans 9 can happen without first looking at those OT texts and this op has failed to do that.
• Once the Genesis texts are read it becomes apparent the promises were not made to Israel. Big, huge, ginormous error in exegesis. Not once does the Romans 9 text state anything about promises made to Israel but the Genesis passages are clear. Paul is writing about promises made to Abraham. That is why Paul moved from Israel to "children of Abraham." The "word" thought to have failed was the promise made to Abe about his son, Isaac.
• Departing only for a moment from the Romans 9 text we know from Galatians 3 that the promises were made to Abraham and Jesus, not nation-state Israel. Galatians 3 explicitly states the promises were made to Abraham and his seed and the seed is singular (not plural), and the seed is Jesus. The promises were made to Abraham and Jesus. The promise was Isaac (not Ishmael) would be the offspring bearing his name. Paul then clarifies this to explain the promise is NOT for children of the flesh. It is to the children of promise to whom the word promised Abraham (and Jesus) applies.
• I have already covered the eschatological content leading up to chapter 9 so I will not repeat it although it applies to "About this time next year I will return...." because in the OT precedent Abraham waited more than a decade before the original promise of a son was made and God reiterated the promise and left again to return later when the promise was fulfilled. The same had happened in the NT. The promised son had come (and gone) and as a consequence tribulation and judgment was pending.

It is coming. God's word has NOT failed. All of you - both Gentile and Jew - need to get your acts together because God is impartial. These are things the Romans text actually states, not eisegetic inferences made based on pre-existing doctrinal biases.

Your "exegesis" of verse 6-8 is not exegesis at all. It's rather shoddy. The only part you got correct is that not all "physical" descendants are chosen. How you got there is the shoddy part.

I have no more time to devote to your insecurities. Good luck.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Paul makes clear he is talking about the election of individuals, not nations, when he says in verses 21-24, which were left out of the discussion. Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God desiring to show his wrath and to make know his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy which he has prepared beforehand for glory---even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."

Here he is speaking of Israel. The Children of Promise. God calls his kingdom from the Jews and the Gentiles.

 

[Josheb]

My intent was not to prove anything but to offer possible alternates to the conclusions you drew.

To what end?


This is the Arminianism & Calvinism board where matters of soteriology are discussed. I've alluded to this several times in this thread without cogent response. Presumably this op has a soteriological point to make relevant to Arminianism & Calvinism but that is nowhere found in the op.

It's important to recognize that the interpretations of Romans 9 can be complex, and there are various perspectives within Christianity. Different theological traditions may emphasize different aspects of the text, leading to diverse interpretations of God's sovereignty, election, and human responsibility but if Christ is all in all, I need to reflect his meekness and kindness in all of my discourse.

The reason differences exist is because of errors in exegesis, not the existence of alternative exegeses. At the foundation of this op several fallacies exist. Or perhaps it is best to say several presuppositional errors exist. One of them is the motion multiple exegeses can and do exist and another is that if they exist, they can all be equal and another is since they exist, they are to be treated as equally valid and veracious when none of that is true or correct.

Even very intelligent, well-educated, long-experienced theologians with lots of letter after their name make mistakes in exegesis. One of the wonderful things about internet forums is we get to sort through the strengths and weakness of every argument in search of an impeccable exegesis .



So, no, alternative exegeses do not exist. A multitude of eisegeses exist, and their subscribers mistakenly call their renderings "exegesis" when that is a misnomer. Furthermore, an existence of another eisegesis does not prove Calvin or Arminius wrong any more than the existence of a horse or a sound wave prove either man's views incorrect.

This op is built on a pile of presuppositional errors.


But that does not change the fact I (and presumably others) would like to see you present an actual exegesis of the Romans 9 text. I can understand the feeling this may now be recognized as either too big a task or even a misguided endeavor, but the exercise could still do you some good if, in fact, you sincerely believe God wants you to change or refine your approach to discussing differences. As I used to tell my clients, "Put the bit in your mouth and enjoin the fray!"
Be courageous, not mean.

John 3:19-21 NIV
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

We all make mistakes. Few are willing to admit them when they occur - the moment they occur. Fewer still will correct their errors when corrected. It happens every day in internet forums everywhere. As the Bible puts it, people love darkness and will not come into the light for fear their deeds will be seen for what they are. They hide. It goes all the way back to Eden. However, when we walk in the light we see God at work. Correction is not rejection.

We're not your enemies. We disagree with you when it comes to soteriology, that's all. This forum is the place to have those discussions if you can 1) form a cogent case for what you believe without attacking others, 2) withstand just and scripturally proven dissent, 3) correct your mistakes wherever they may exist, and 4) give others the opportunity to do the same.


That is why you joined CCCF. Yes?


Come join the fray.


Exegete the text if you can.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Your bias is showing. Calvinism teaches that those whom God chooses won't resist His call. As opposed to your "cannot." "My sheep hear My voice and follow me." The reason they won't resist is because in the doctrine, God predestines them to salvation, and calls them to salvation because He has predestined them, and therefore they are called and they do hear, and they do follow.

John Calvin said, "I say, then, that grace is not offered to us in such a way that afterwards we have the option either to submit or to resist."

If one receives the gift of God, they have eternal life.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Meekness and kindness are ambiguous words. Some consider pointing out how another is failing to support a claim or engage in constructive and equal dialog as being unkind. Though when instructing and correcting their children for example, they would not look at it that way. Some see meek as being a "yes" person, never asserting their views in strong or assertive ways---though of course when Jesus did that it was not seen that way and yet He calls Himself meek.

Before I begin going through your post point by point, I must point out that what was given was not an exegesis, but simply two points of view. both given without either one explaining how these differing views were arrived at. I am not knocking the OP---just saying.

Good grief. I have never seen such a misunderstanding of exegesis. How can we go on when no one can agree on the terms? Yes, it was exegesis whether you believe it or not. I'm done for a while.

 

[Josheb]

Here he is speaking of Israel. The Children of Promise. God calls his kingdom from the Jews and the Gentiles.

Everyone here is a child of promise. That makes everyone here Israel; the Israel that is Israel, the descendants of Abraham that are his by the promise of God.

Romans 11:17-24
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Gentile converts are grafted into an already existing tree. The Church was grafted in. The Church does not replace Israel. The Hebrew "qahal" is the Greek "ecclesia" (look it up). The "tree" is Jesus, not Israel. The branches broken off are the Israel that is not Israel.


Personal attacks and logical fallacies are not exegesis. If you like, I'll stay out of the thread and lurk on the condition you provide and actual exegesis of the Romans 9 text and engage the others in cogent conversation specifically about that exegesis. Just say it.

 

[Josheb]

Good grief. I have never seen such a misunderstanding of exegesis.

Prove it wrong.

How can we go on when no one can agree on the terms?

Exegesis.

Yes, it was exegesis whether you believe it or not.

The posts prove otherwise.

I'm done for a while.

Bye

 

[Mr GLee]

Jesus is Israel. This is a third definition of the name "Israel;" one that occurs different from the bloodline, geo-political nation-state definition and the definition of promise. The name "Israel" means "God perseveres." The first person called "Israel" was Jacob (Gen. 32), not the people who left Egypt for the promised land. Give consideration to ALL that God has said defining Israel when you read, examine, and explain the Romans 9:6-29 text.

Next, we all know you have issues with Calvinism because that has been made clear in your prior ops. I would, therefore, ask you to re-read the Romans 9:6-29 text and whatever is stated in each verse ask yourself line-by-line, "Does the verse state God did it or does the verse state the sinner did it?" Note, for example, both choosing and calling are done by God and God alone. In other words, both choosing and calling are monergistic and never synergistic. If you make two columns and tally what is God-done and what is specifically sinner-done then you'll be able to apply the text soteriologically.

Good points. sons of God, Christians are called Israel . The Father in Isaiah 62 promised to rename his bride of all the nations as a result of the first century reformation. . . destroying Kings in Israel as years the locust has eaten , restoring the government of Judges women and men prophets sent out (apostle)with the living gospel

Christian, a more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations of the world. Christian literally means . .Residents of the city of Christ prepared for his bride the church, named after her husband, the founder Christ .

The time of reformation had come

Joel 2:25-29 And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you. And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my people shall never be ashamed. And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;(nations) and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit

The veil was rent the walls fell down Both male an female prophets in a new kingdom of priests No more Jewish males only club.

 

[Mr GLee]

Gentile converts are grafted into an already existing tree. The Church was grafted in. The Church does not replace Israel. The Hebrew "qahal" is the Greek "ecclesia" (look it up). The "tree" is Jesus, not Israel. The branches broken off are the Israel that is not Israel.

I would think like all parables they hide the spiritual understanding. Wild olive tree "natural uncovered mankind" fed by the incorruptible seed Christ as the roots that give growth to branches .

It is like the parable of two sided coin. . . one seen the temporal things (Cesar) and the hidden the spiritual (eternal God). The focus is the root the foundation of faith the word of God alone is the power of growth .It's never about the flesh of dying mankind,

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them,(neither Jew nor gentile) and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; (wild)

Psalms 80: 8-11 Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land.The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river

Sea, salt water, judgment. Fresh living water the gospel

James 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

You could say to both to plant the incorruptible seed and water the seed with the living water of the gospel,

.Matthew 21:18-20King James VersionNow in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

 

[Ladodgers6]

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

It is way too easy for the sinful nature still in us to speak out harshly with judgment and then rationalize it as a virtue than it is to treat our opponents with kindness. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

I do agree with in that we must treat everyone with love care. But to dismiss our creeds for deeds has been at the center of heresies for centuries. God's Word must be front and center, without it, we are not only lost but doomed. How do you get to know who God is and Christ? How do not we get the good news of the Gospel for the ungodly?

Placing deeds before the Gospel was the problem that replaced Christ with human efforts. Has not only the church and the Apostle condemned such a perverted outlook, but Christ himself? No flesh will be justified through the Law, Paul says, several times throughout his epistles. Christ called the Pharisees who were looked upon as the most righteous devoted men of God, white wash tombs filled with dead men bones, why?

Just by your comments above the Gospel is being negated and replaced by legalism. Our righteousness is not earned through human obedience, but it is given freely in Christ as a free gift that is received through Faith Alone apart from works Paul says.

I am not judging you, only trying to help you. Our virtue only lies in one place, and that is in Christ Alone and his virtues, and are also given to us when we believe as free gifts.​