Arminianism Ultimately Leads to Open Theology

I wouldn't argue with this.

No not really. I agree that it does not negate man's free will, but I don't define free will in teh way that you do. I think free will in Scripture is the ability to act in accordance with one's nature. God's knows what that choice will bring. But foreknowledge is choosing, not simply being prescient, as can be seen in the usage of it in Scripture.

The conclusions are absurd only because you don't like the outcome.

All men have thenatural capacity. They do not have the moral capacity because their sin nature has corrupted their desires and their heart deceives them. I think we should rely on Scripture to tell us who is responsible. But you and I don't see eye to eye on that.

Actually it does do this and it has nothing to do with the hardening of Israel. THe poor hardening is bearing way more weight than Scripture gives it under your idea here. You should be abandoning that theory by now.

They are morally unable to respond in faith because of their sin nature. It is neither devisive nor an unnecessary paradox. It is what Scripture teaches and I think we should go with that.

But alas, you will no more be convinced than I will, so I will bow out here again. I just challenge to start sorting things through what Scripture actually says about these issues.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. What is transpiring between us is not a debate. It's me explaining things and you changing the meaning of what I'm saying. That's not a debate.

 

And that is where you are incorrect. That is not what Arminians think. Read what you wrote again to see if you can see the error in your ways before I enlighten you. You speak over and over again about others misspeaking about Calvinism, yet you are doing it right now.

Wrong. This is an invalid cause and effect. Man's choice is not set until he makes the choice.

His life will be lived according to the choices that he makes. It will correspond with God's knowledge, but this does not make the decisions less free.

But God knows his decision based upon the decision that is made in time. You have a wrong idea of the word "change."

So because you say "it doesn't work... it is unsound," you're right? You'll need a lot more proof than that.

And yet you do not provide clear proof to its so-called fallacy.

Again, you have a misunderstanding about "change." Man still has a free choice to choose or reject God. God knows the decision.

Here is an example:

1. Jojo has the choice between pancakes and waffles.
2. God, seeing the end from the beginning, knows that Jojo will make the free choice to choose pancakes.
3. Jojo will choose pancakes. He has the ability to choose either of them, and yet he chooses pancakes. His will is not thwarted by this foreknowledge. Had Jojo chosen waffles, God would have known this as well.

See how it works? I hope that makes things clear to you. Jojo's choice is not changed by GOd knowing one thing or another in this case. That is as simple as I can explain it to you.

Can man really choose "yes" if he is not elect? The answer is "no," therefore, #1 is a correct answer. Thanks for playing.

There are many people that do not "know" that God exists. They are even named in the Bible - "The fool says in his heart "There is no God.'" And, again, can a non-elect really choose "yes?"

Do you have a son? If you do, then this makes more sense. Sometimes you have to let a son make his own decisions, providing him with all you can. You cannot force him to make the right choice. You mourn when he makes a wrong choice. You are thrilled when he makes a right one. Yet, you let him make his decision. Yep. That's love. More love than, say, aborting a fetus because he may not follow what I tell him to do.

More love than, say, a God who creates a creature that does not have even the ability to say "yes."

God provided everything for man to say "yes" except for forcing him to believe in Him.

Man's choice is not limited, because the foreknowledge is predicated on that free choice. You are still placing your own Calvinistic presumptions upon the argument, which is the problem with your argument. It always will be.

 

That's not how it works, that's how a made-up example works. Here's how a real example works. (Example taken very loosely from a book by Sproul)

Why did Ruth marry Boaz?

1. Because she wanted to.

Did she really want to? Yes. But how did it all really come about?

2. Because her husband died.
3. Because she was then a widow in need of a husband.
4. Because she came to Bethlehem.
5. Because that's where Naomi went, and she wanted to be with Naomi.
6. Naomi went there because there was a famine in Judah.
7. In Bethlehem, she picked barley in the fields of Boaz.
8. Naomi suggested she go to Boaz at night.
9. Boaz "happened" to wake up with Ruth at his feet.

So did Ruth want to marry Boaz? Yes.

But would she have wanted to marry Boaz if her husband hadn't died? Would she have wanted to marry Boaz if there was no famine? If she didn't know Naomi? If Naomi hadn't chosen to go to Bethlehem because of the famine? If she hadn't picked barley in that particular field? WHO has control over things like life and death? Famines?

As Sproul said (and I paraphrase from memory), God is sovereign over the means as well as the ends. God orchestrates all the external circumstances that shape a person's circumstances and desires in order to bring about His ends. The fact that Ruth wanted to marry Boaz does not stand in isolation, as if you can conclude from this one thing that free will exists.

 

Why did Ruth marry Boaz?

1. Because she wanted to.[/quote]

Because she chose to.

Given.

Many widows didn't get married again. She chose to get married again.

Why? Because she chose to be with her mother-in-law.

Ruth didn't have to - she chose to.

Again, Ruth is still having a choice. She chose to follow Naomi's advice.

She chose to.

ANd yet, Ruth could still have said no. She could have still chosen not to marry, not to go to Bethlehem, not to follow Naomi's advice. God did not MAKE her do these things, which is where your analogy falls apart.

And yet, God did not CAUSE Ruth to choose Boaz. She still could have said "no." And that is the point. No one is arguing, at least to my knowledge, that God works things throughout, but Ruth could still have said 'no'.

 

Scott, already touched on this but I couldn't resist making a comment. The fact that you actually thing that Arminians believe this proves that you have yet to really even deal with our arguments. You sound so much like me when I was a Calvinists. I thought I knew Arminianism because I had debated a bunch of ignorant Arminians who held up John 3:16 as there only defense. When I came across a "new" thought I wrote it off as being unworthy of my time. I labelled and dismissed or I ridiculed and dodged, I diverted by changing the subject or just left the conversation, all of which you have done to me since I've been on this board. I feel sorry for you Larry because you not even willing to exaimine a thought that doesn't come from your own accepted library.

Even when scriptural arguments are raised you dismissing them by saying things like "THe poor hardening is bearing way more weight than Scripture gives it under your idea here. You should be abandoning that theory by now."

That is the most blantant display of avoidance I've seen since I've been debating these issues when I was a teenager. What if Arminians just said, "the poor predestination is bearing way more weight than Scripture gives it under your ideas." You would be all over them for not dealing with the text, and you know it! Yet hardening is mentioned much more that predestination, but you refuse to deal with it.

You know Larry, I expect answers like these from ignorant Arminians but not Calvinists. Calvinists are supposed to be more knowledgable and dependant upon the text than that. It was avoidance arguments like these made by Arminians that convinced me that Calvinism must be right back in the day. Your avoidance arguments are only helping to secure my beliefs that these doctrines have merit.

Semantics. The implications are the same. Calvinist resort to these tedious distinctions in order to avoid the ridculous conclusions and contradictions that their paradoxes create.

When we say "unable" they argue its "unwilling".
When we say "no capasity" they argue "no moral capasity"
When we say "you don't allow for a choice" they say "their is a choice but they always choose one way."

They do this to distract from the point because none of these arguments affect the implications of their position. If they are totally unwilling its the same implication as being totally unable, after all they are unable to be willing, Right?

How does man having "natural capasity" but not moral capasity have any effect on the implications of the Calvinistic dogma. It doesn't except as a means to distract and seemily explain away problems that their system affords.

Where? And please pick a passage that has at least one of these four words: Faith, belief, response, or gospel.

Here we go.

Translation: By saying they are "morally unable" instead of just saying "unable" I have changed the implications of the devisiveness of my paradox. I can say they are natually able to respond in faith but morally unable so the Bible is not being devisive because it's refering to man's natural ability not his moral ability. Talk about your textual gymnastics!

If a man is unable he is unable. The implications of believing he is unable don't change just because you change the semantics.

 

No, your understanding of the example falls apart because you assumed incorrectly that I was trying to show that God MADE her do these things.

Yes, He did. He simply didn't do it the way anti-calvinists claim He would have to in order for it to be true - by forcing her to do it as if she were a puppet.

She could not have said "no". Not because she was forced to say "yes" against her will, but because her will and her circumstances (being in the right place at the right time, and being a widow) were shaped by God in accordance with His will.

 

You have refused to acknowledge the plain meaning of much of this already, so I'm posting this here primarily for the benefit of others. As usual, emphasis is mine.

Ah, but surely he's only talking to the Jews, since according to Billism (a.k.a. the whitespace bible), blindness only comes from hardening, and only the Jews are hardened.

What? He's going to cause Jesus to be a light to the Gentiles to open blind eyes? Surely the proper way to interpret this is that Isaiah switches referrents mid-sentence, and means "light to the Gentiles, to open blind Jewish eyes." In fact, if you look at Isaiah three chapters later, turn the book sideways, squint real hard and then pick every seventh letter of every third verse, you get the hidden message that he switches referrants mid-sentence here. Get the white out!

While you're at it, you'd better blot out this text, too:

No doubt he meant "Jews" instead of "Gentiles" there. Get the white out!

Uh oh, here's another spot we have to erase...

Let's see - we're ALL (Jews and Gentiles alike) under sin. What does that make us? What's that word I'm looking for? Oh yeah....DEAD.

Sons of disobedience? Surely they CHOSE of their own free will to be sons of disobedience, just like I chose to be the son of a Greek guy. Yeah. I remember being given the choice to be born to my father instead of some other guy.

Get the white out!

 

Scott and Bill,

I hate to say this but I am not sure you two are even thinking here. It sure doesn't seem like it. I am not the one parroting misstated things. I have said what others here before you have said. Armianians believe in a prevenient grace that enables every one to make their choice without the hindrance of their sin (Look it up if you doubt me). The point is, that you insist that they must have a "real choice" to believe for it to be free will. Are you now going to deny that after spending all this time blasting us for it?

If you doubt the truth of my statement about what your side believes about choice, then all you need to do is simply read. We have constantly been told that our definition of "free will" is not truly free because man cannot really make the other choice. It is one hundreds of posts in this forum and you won't have to read very long until you find it.

You also need to rethink your issue of God's foreknowledge and certainty. Scott makes the statement that "Man's choice is not set until he makes the choice." So if God knows this choice in eternity past, that doesn't "set" the choice? That is ludicrous. I can't imagine you can say that with a straight face. God's foreknowledge is eternal, no matter what you think of it. And when he knows something, it is certain, whether is a causative or not. To make a statement like that, you can hardly of put much though into this, IMO. If you are willing to live with that contradiction, then so be it. I am not. I will live with teh paradoxes that Scripture puts forth, not that paradoxes of my own making.

Your solution is fallacious because it purports to save man's "free will" but in reality takes it away. No amount of "time/outside of time" argument can refute that basic fact.

Scott says There are many people that do not "know" that God exists. This is a direct contradiction of Rom 1 which tells us that everyone knows that God exists. It is a direct contradiction of the truth of hte image of God in man. It shows once again how willing you are to dispense with Scripture in order to support your opinions. I am not comfortable with that. If you are, then so be it.

Bill,

Your own posts show more of the same unwillingness to examine what you are really saying. I know you claim to be a former calvinist and that is fine. Don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about though. You know better. Because you disagree, and because you are unwilling to give serious interaction to the real arguments in the debate does not mean that I am uninformed. You have not raised a valid scriptural argument with this "hardening theory." You have created that to help your position rather than examined Scripture. This election of the apostles routine that you hold forth is clearly refuted in Scripture when those outside the apostles are called the elect of God

As for the semantic issue, once again your response shows that you have not adequately dealt with the issues. Man's inability is not because of God and creation. It is because of man's moral nature that he brought on himself through sin. That is a significant difference that you would do well to be conversant with because it is at the heart of this question.

However, I have pretty much dropped out of these discussions because of the dead end that they come to. There is a great difference on the way we should approach Scripture that makes any kind of discussion very difficult. So I will once again go back just to reading and letting you guys have your say here ... (Unless you say something I can't resist )

To both of you, I have no issues with either of you. I am attacking you in anyway or putting you down. But you must understand that from our side, these issues you are talking about have been long answered by convincing proof from Scripture. We have not yanked the verses out of context. There have been too many dissenters for us to get away with that. The dissent over the years has forced a rigorous and accurate handling of the text and that is where I believe your position falls short. It cannot stand the "test of the text." It depends too much on making the text conform to your presuppositions. Bill, I hope after your foray here into this that you will return to what you claim to have believed. Scott, I hope that you will begin to think through these issues some more and see what it is we are really saying. As I often say, the text is the issue and that is what we must stick with.

[ March 21, 2003, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Okay - first you say that I was assuming incorrectly that God made her do these things...

Yes, He did. He simply didn't do it the way anti-calvinists claim He would have to in order for it to be true - by forcing her to do it as if she were a puppet.</font>[/QUOTE]So God didn't make her do it, but he caused her to do it. Do you not see how this is merely semantics. If God is omnipotent and he causes her to do these things, how can this not be seen as "made" her do it, since no one can thwart the will of God?

And this conclusion is based on a strong presumption that is completely unsupported by the text. In spite of these circumstances, you assume that there is no way she could have said, "no" without any Biblical evidence whatsoever. God shaped the circumstances, but at no time do we see in the book of Ruth that she was completely helpless in the matter.

 

And a corrolary to that. There have been many, many people who have honestly admitted that they were called to the gospel ministry. They have been placed in the right circumstances and have received a genuine call.

Yet they said "no." In spite of God's circumstances. In spite of His calling.

So did God fail? Or did the man?

 

And you should know by now that Arminianism isn't based upon what some people say here any more than Calvinism is based upon what some people say here. You're still arguing a straw man.

That's not exactly right.

And

And yet, the position of Arminians is that man is free to make whatever choice he wants. If you are so certain about "simply reading," why not post some Arminius or Wesley for us. Go to the source and see if we're misrepresenting the theological system. In the Arminian system, Man can choose (and has the ability) to reject Christ or accept Him. Everyone has that choice. In the Calvinist system, those who are non-elect do not have the ability to choose Christ, just as those who are elect do not have the ability to reject Him. That is basic Calvinist theology there.

And God knows the end from the beginning. You still are under the presumption (even though you say you are not in this very paragraph) that God's knowledge is causative. Again, God's knowledge does not "set" the action. The action "sets" God's knowledge. It is quite simple - you are complicating it only because you cannot understand it or cannot accept it.

But you are calling it a "fact" without any proof. I've defended my position several times and you have had to subjegate it to attack it, when, instead, the argument is what it is. Man has a free choice. God knows the result of this free choice. Man's choice is the cause, God's knowledge is the effect.

So Romans 1 says that all men know that God exists? Hmm... Read it again, and let us discuss that, because if you read closely, you will see that this is not true. You've got a large burden of proof to show that this passage is referring to all men of every nation.

 

It is not semantics. If you have a problem with the words, then we can find others. Perhaps a better word for MAKE would be FORCE. But to FORCE someone to do something, or to MAKE them do it in the sense of pulling a puppet's strings is very different than CAUSING the action to come to pass.

There are different levels of CAUSALITY for everything. If God sees you outside in the front yard and wants you to come into the house, He can take control of your mind and force your legs to move such that you walk into the house. He can make a few angels appear to force you into the house. He can make a few Mafia goons appear to break your legs and drag you into the house.

He can ALSO create you such that you hate to get wet, foreordain that you have no coat or umbrella, no keys to the car, no close shelter or anything else handy to protect yourself from rain, all then He has to do is make it rain, and you will WANT to go inside the house.

In each case, God is the ULTIMATE CAUSE for you to go into the house, but in the last case, you WANTED to go into the house. You were not FORCED to do so against your will, as though you were a puppet. Puppets don't WANT to do anything. They simply do whatever the puppeteer forces them to do.

In an academic sense, you COULD have decided to stand out in the rain, but that is only an academic fantasy. You would NEVER choose to stand outside in the rain, because it is not your nature to do so. Your nature came from and was shaped by God. And God pre-arranged it so that you would have no other way to keep from getting wet, so God also controlled your circumstances.

So no matter how you slice it, God is still the ultimate CAUSE of you going into the house.

[ March 21, 2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

Why do you tell me I am not right?? Are you denying that Arminians believe in prevenient grace?? Read article 5 of the Remonstrance. This prevenient grace overcomes the effects of Adam's sin that corrupted man and enables him to cooperate with God in salvation. Your quotes verify what I have said, that arminians do believe in depravity, though not exactly like the Calvinists. They admit that man cannot believe apart from this prevenient grace, but that the prevenient grace is given to all men to enable thme to cooperate with God if they should so choose.

But you believe his "wants" go against his "nature." And we don't.

Because the Bible is my guide and that is what I go by. I have read some of these but very little. I have no real use to read them. I have seen what they believe documented in numerous sources.

YOu just blasted me for saying that. Now you say it.

Those who are non-elect do not want to choose Christ. They want to go their own way. Those who are elect have their natures changed so that their wants change.

You have not demonstrated the cause/effect relationship that you believe. You have assumed it. I have not really addressed teh cause/effect relationship because, as I have pointed out, it doesn't matter. Once God knows it, it is impossible to change. Since God knows all things before man is ever born, man cannot change his mind. It is set. That is not complicated and it certainly has nothing to do with my understanding or acceptance of it.

I beg to differ. I have shown it.
Are you denying that God knew everything exhaustively and certainly in eternity past, before man has been created?
ARe you suggesting that man can choose contrary to what God knows in eternity past, long before man has ever had the chance to view the evidence?

These questions (that could worded in slightly different ways) show the fallacy of your position.

I have shown some of the fallacies in your position. The argument is what it is ... namely weak and artificial to support your belief. I am not comfortable doing that.

You are kidding right?? This is hardly deserving of response ... I can't imagine this at all. The whole point of Romans 1-3 is the universality of sin.

 

Larry and Nick I have just a couple of questions for you:

1. What is your definition of Hardening and what is its purpose in scripture. Please address the difference of self-hardening and God's hardening, if you think there is any difference.

2. What is you definition of "Total Depravity" as taught by the Calvinistic system.

Thanks

 

Read your wording again.

Nope. You just didn't define it the way that Arminius did.

And this is different than what you initially said.

Again, your original definition of prevenient grace was faulty. This one is a little better.

Read the quotes again. God draws all men to him.

Then don't try to tell an Arminian what he or she believes.

And many of them are undoubtedly found in Calvinistic works. You kick and scream whenever someone has the audacity to quote Calvin out of context in documented works, which has happened several times. Read the original, within the context, and you may get a different impression.

Have you read Calvin?

Where?

Exactly. That's what I said. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the non-elect to choose God, just as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the elect NOT to choose God. And do they WANT their nature changed? If they do not, is God forcing their salvation?

But you are assuming that God's knowledge is equivalent to God's foreordaining it. God knows freely what man will choose freely. He knows the end from the beginning. Perhaps there are two assumptions at work. Yet, you must realize that you are also assuming that God somehow cannot work this way - that he can somehow know a person's free moral choice without having caused it.

No. What I am denying is that God's knowledge "forces" man to choose certain things. God's knowledge is contingent upon man's choices.

I will rephrase, as this is a loaded question. Man has a chance to view the evidence and make a personal free choice - God sees this free choice and knows it from eternity past. Man's choice is not "forced," and remains free.

And as I've just shown, there is no fallacy - only that of your loaded questioning.

And I have answered all of your so-called "fallacies."

I am not denying the universality of sin. What I am arguing is that all men across the entire time-space continuum knows that there is a God. I take it that you cannot prove it, as you cannot address it.

 

Scott,

I am really not sure how to proceed with you. You say the same thing I do and then tell me I am wrong. That doesn't make sense. You don't address the issues. That doesn't help out. I don't mean to be hard to get along with here but that is extremely frustrating. You seem to want to deny it just because I said it is true, then you come back later and affirm what I said the first time. Regardless of how much you disagree with me, something is not wrong just because I said it. I do say something true every now and then and you can feel free to agree with me. It won't kill you

Well then you will have to show a difference. My definition is the definition that has been used for years.

And this is different than what you initially said. </font>[/QUOTE]No it's not. YOu didn't understand the first time. That does not mean I am wrong. It means you didn't understand.

That is the teaching of prevenient grace that I used from the beginning that you denied and now you affirm. Make up your mind. I know what you believe. I have seen it enough. Don't play these silly little games about it.

I don't. I know what they believe because I have studied it. I have not told you what you believe. I have told you that what you believe doesn't solve the problem.

I have read some of the original contexts. When you see the same thing over and over again, it starts confirming for us what it really means.

Very little. NO real interest since we are way past that. As I have said, I am a calvinist becuase of what Scripture teaches, not because of what others have said about it. I rejected my former arminianism because I started reading Scripture. If others don't come to the same conclusion, then they have to live with that. I had to go where I the Holy Spirit was teaching me to go.

Here, you don't really make sense. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Scripture tells us that unsaved (natural) man has no interest in the things of God. They do what they do by nature. There is no indication in Scripture of an unsaved person wanting their nature changed. That would be contradictory to "nature" and contradictory to what Scripture teaches about man.

If you read my post again, I said that I was making no statement on this and that it doesn't matter. Once it is set by God's knowledge in eternity past, then it is set. It cannot be changed.

I agree with this. But this is standard cavlinistic teaching.

AGain, I have made no assumptions about that, which you should be able to see from my posts if you read them for that they say. I am not even addressing this point. I am addressing the point that your solution doesn't preserve freedom because man cannot do anything different than what god already knows.

God doesn't force man to choose anything. But to say God's knowledge is contigent upon man's choices is to deny the self-sufficiency of God. YOu are saying that there is something God cannot have apart from man, that God depends on man for something. That is contrary to Scripture.

I will rephrase, as this is a loaded question. Man has a chance to view the evidence and make a personal free choice - God sees this free choice and knows it from eternity past. Man's choice is not "forced," and remains free.</font>[/QUOTE]Very clever, but still faulty. God's seeing adn knowing of the choice before time, means that in man's life he can do nothing other than what God already knows he will do. Thus, he has no freedom to change his mind and to be saved or to reject. That has been my point, and your clever attempts to avoid it won't work against me.

They are only loaded because you don't like the answer to them.

Where? If you would do it here, that would be helpful

I can't prove it? JOhn 1:9 and Rom 1:18ff. teach it. That is all the proof we need. Why do you insist on more proof than the word of God? This seems at the root of your entire position. It appears that your mindset is that God's revelation is not enough, we have to add to it to make it palatable to our way of thinking. I know you don't claim that and I am not putting words in your mouth, but I see no way for you to avoid that position. There is simply no other option. Either God meant what he said or he didn't. I am a calvinist because I believe God meant what he said and I don't believe he wanted to come up with creative ways to explain how to maintain his revelation and what I migth think should be appropriate. Just let the word stand on its own.

However, I think we have both made our points here. If others wish to continue this, have at it. There are only so many ways to state this and until you start reckoning with it, I can go no further with it.

I have enjoyed the conversation though.

 

I'll address your scriptural arguments because I have to correct you in regard to your misuse of the text, I'll leave all the other junk where in belongs....on your posts:

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. ... 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The part that you left out clearly shows us that he is speaking to those who have already believed and recieved the Spirit and he is teaching that they are the only ones who can understand "the deep things of God." There is nothing in this passage which discusses the means of how one receives the Spirit--which is one of the reasons I asked you to find verses that actually address faith, our response, or the gospel.

Look at this part you left out:

What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him. 10 Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the concerns of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? In the same way, no one knows the concerns of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God[b/], in order to know what has been freely given to us by God

The parts I've placed in bold show us that he his speaking to those who have already received the Spirit. Our debate rests on how did they recieve the Spirit, through what means? Gal 3:14 tells us that the Spirit comes through faith.

This passage doesn't address our points of contention for I agree that no one can understand the deep things of God without the Spirit. I don't even believe that someone could understand the simplicity of the gospel unless it comes by the Spirit's power, so this passage falls way short in meeting your burden.

You also refered to:

2 Cor 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.

Let's look again at the part of this passage you didn't include:

It starts by saying: 1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not give up. 2 Instead, we have renounced shameful secret things, not walking in deceit or distorting God's message, but in God's sight we commend ourselves to every person's conscience by an open display of the truth.

So, its says this message and the messengers are commended to every person's conscience then it says "even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe"

It says "even if it is veiled" it is veiled to those who are hardened, meaning its not veiled to anyone else. Thanks for the support text.

BTW, I've never stated that Gentiles who have lived in rebellion and sin are not hardened too. The scripture teaches they have hardened themselves by their own will, as had the Israelites. They were NOT born hardened as you assert, they BECAME hardened as clearly seen in Romans 1. God then can hardened them by his will (which in scripture to only done to the Israelites), by "giving them a spirit of stupor" or "causing their eyes not to see or their ears not to hear" so that the miracles and teaching don't convince them to turn from their self hardening and be saved before he has accomplished His purpose through them. Therefore, I believe, as scripture clearly reveals, that there is a self hardening which is a result of living in sin and rebellion and their is God's active hardening in which He seals them in that hardened state in order to accomplish a purpose (Pharoah is a good example of this) So, your arguments are only attacking a straw man, not me.

In reference to Is. 42, that is a great passage. I do wish you would have left the whole passage in tact and included: "2 He will be gentle – he will not shout or raise his voice in public. 3 He will not crush those who are weak or quench the smallest hope. He will bring full justice to all who have been wronged. 4 He will not stop until truth and righteousness prevail throughout the earth. Even distant lands beyond the sea will wait for his instruction." That is a beautiful picture of a loving Savior. I wonder how he will bring justice to "all who have been wronged?"

Again I don't disagree that Christ is just as much a light to the blind Israelites as he is to the blind Gentiles. The fact that you think that attacks me proves you don't even have a clue to what my arguments are. Being self-hardened is different than being activing hardened by the Sovereign will of God. Either way both are done during one's lifetime, not from birth which contradicts your view.

You also point toward:
Ephesians 4:17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

This is a perfect example of self-hardening. Notice it says "have given themsleves over." Again, I don't deny that sin and rebellion hardened people, but once again you can see they aren't born that way.

Also, notice that Paul is warning the believers not to become like them just like the author of Hebrews warns in chapter 3 for the believers not to harden themselves. Can a brother in Christ become hardened in sin? Apparently, he can, why else do you think the authors would warn against it? If believers can become hardened in rebellion why would I not believe that unbelieving Gentiles could be hardened as well?

You are confusing the self-hardening with the Sovereign hardening of the Israelites, which is why you point to all of these passages. But once again there is nothing concerning man's inablity to respond to the gospel by faith.

Keep looking

 

because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;

except that for this reason they have are past feeling and have given themselves over, where you suggest this is by self-hardening, scripture is clear it is because of the ignorance that is in them,and because of the blindness of their heart.


God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

This treats the world as a giant script that God creates and then allows to play or unwind as on a film. This is a better analogy even that the comonly used "puppet show". While seemingly logical, this to me almost calls into question the reality of life, and the Bible does not present the world this way. We are prying into God's eternity too much, and we will never be able to lay it out so simply. So this is where the true "tension" or paradox is, not in trying to explain foreknowledge, and then claiming that the resulting deeper contradition that comes up is the true paradox.

Just curious, did you read scripture before that? Or were you just some lukewarm or ignorant Christian who believed whatever your church told you (like the "ignorant Arminians" Bill speaks of), but then as you read for yourself Calvinism made more sense?