Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction!

Ha! I loved that movie!

Ok huck, let's go.</font>[/QUOTE] Me too! I was hoping the humor wouldn't be lost on everyone before Romanbear accused me of being arrogant again.

I disagree. While there are numerous groupings of people made in the scripture, the only two that really matter is those saved by faith and those who are not. Gentiles were saved in the OT by faith through the means of the Jewish system established by the Law and Prophets which pointed forward to the redeeming Messiah. After Christ, all are saved by the same mechanism, faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

I have not had time to finish my study on this element. However,after a cursory look, there is at least two types of hardening spoken of- individual and group. These are not equivalent nor necessarily inter-related.

While universally joining these concepts might provide you with a convenient depository for difficult scriptures, it is not legitimate.

The cases of group hardening I found were either nations or nations exemplified by their leader, ie. Pharoah. The cases of individual hardening I found were the result of a person's own will- which fits in perfectly with the calvinist concept of total depravity.

While your idea is one possibility (and congruent with calvinism), the remnant can also refer to a God chosen group that is preserved from destruction for a future purpose.

Both of these scriptures deal with the transition from salvation through the Jewish system to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Acts 28:28 could just as easily mean universalism as what you imply. Matthew 21:43 points to a people that will produce the fruit of God's kingdom- this cannot refer to Gentiles in general. It must point to the then future Church.

My view is that this is a side issue. Where you say "Inability", I would insert "unwillingness". Where you say "unable" I would insert "completely and naturally unwilling". I believe that man has a free will but that he will never employ it to seek God. This can rightly be called total inability only because it is a 100% scriptural certainty that man in his natural sinful state will not choose the true God since they cannot "see, hear, understand or receive the things of God."

Because there is a distinction between the national hardening which was necessary for the gospel of God to be extended to the world without the Jewish system and individual hardening which they do willfully.

Only if you are predisposed to weld together individual and group hardening.

I will try to get to the other parts of your post later. But for now, suffice it to say that I do not believe your premise of "three groups" is set on a sound scriptural foundation.

 

Scott,

I'm quite sure Bill will be able to handle these arguments much better than I could, but I just had to stick my nose in and point out one apparent contradiction in the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9-11.

Notice: Calvinists want to make the nationalistic election apply to individuals, but at the same time they desire to make the nationalistic hardening remain national and not let it apply to individuals.

Hmmm........Interesting. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

 

I would say that Romans 9 deals with both. It uses a corporate election to establish that God is sovereign and justified in dealing with individuals any way He chooses. In some respects, group election can provide proper analogies of individual election. However, calvinism and divine election of individuals does not rise much less fall on this text alone.

Jacob and Esau are examples of how individual election serves the purpose of God. Jacob was elected as an individual and chosen as the patriarch of Israel- both before his birth. Esau was rejected personally because he did not value the things of God in his life and rejected by God as the father of Israel prior to being born. Later, Pharoah is representative of a national hardening which also serves the purpose of God while not dealing with the subject of individual salvation.

 

Sounds awefully "convenient" for you that somehow chapter 9 when talking about election has everything to do with individual salvation and yet the end of chapters 10 and 11 when he speaks about hardening it has nothing to do with individual salvation.

Romans 11:13-14:
But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

Sounds like that has something to do with individuals being saved to me.

Why do you get to just randomly and arbitrarily decide what part of these passages apply to individual salvation and what parts are "national." And didn't I hear a Calvinist say one time, " a nation is made up of individuals, so the passage still applies to individuals."

It seems like you want to operate on a double standard.

Hey, whatever makes your system work. Right?

 

Jimmy, Where did I say this? As far as I know I have not discussed Romans 10 and 11 with you guys yet. Bill mentioned it but I haven't had time to look into whatever point he is trying to make.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I stated above that calvinism is not dependent on my interpretation of Romans 9. Romans 8:28-30 stands on its own even if any or all of us are misinterpretting Romans 9.

Yes it does. So please note the context of the argument built around this citation.

Was this hardening of individual Jews? No. Paul was Jewish as were some of the Roman church members he was writing to. The hardening was of the nation- necessary for the gospel to come to the Gentiles... seems like I mentioned that earlier.

Take a look at the analogy that was given also of being grafted into a tree. No branch has ever left a tree by its own will to be grafted into another. Grafting is performed by a husbandman and is totally dependent on his work and skill. By nature, the grafted branch will "accept" the new tree as a source of life but not because it chose it.

Note also that the husbandman is not guilty of anything regarding branches that were not grafted in. They will continue according to their nature.

I never claimed that right but only asserted the difference between the two. Really, I do not think that argument is productive for either side but Bill made it the premise of his argument.

In short, I do not accept the notion that there is a different means of salvation or damnation for Jews and Gentiles in the age of grace.

I don't think that calvinist was me so why bring it up?

That is not my intention at all. And, I don't think you have substantiated this accusation.

No. Whatever the Bible teaches when taken on whole and in context. I believe in the principles of calvinism because it best explains the scriptures in my opinion. I have found inconsistencies in all of the non-calvinist systems that I have been exposed to.

I think Pastor Larry stated that calvinism is willing to let the inherent tensions in scripture stand. In my opinion, every other system tries to explain away scripture rather than explaining it.

 

Brother, we may be debating doctrine, but I always enjoy the humor! Keep it fun! And no matter what, know that I always respect you as a fellow believer.

Yes, I agree that everyone is saved through faith (though obviously in different ways, look at the story of Paul or doubting Thomas these men had to have faith yes, but they also believed because they saw and learned from the Lord directly. The office of Apostle was significant, just as the office of prophet was in the Old Testament.)

But, you missing a very important distinction between the three groups that I have mentioned.

1. The Remnant are Israelites that are not hardened. Look at Romans 11:5-7, it teaches us that the Remnant are Jews selected or chosen out of Israel by Grace and that the rest were hardened due to their continued rebellion.

Did the Remnant deserve being chosen? No more than the others, they all had rebelled against God, which is why it was Unconditional election. Paul wasn't any better than the next Pharasee that God could have selected which is exactly the point Paul is making throughout Romans 9.

All the Israelites deserved to be hardened, but in order that God's purpose of reconciling the world to himself might prevail he reserved for himself a Remnant that were not hardened, but were called to faith in Christ just as the Gentiles were. Out of the Remnant God selected 12 individuals to carry the message to the world, these were his "preappointed, effectually called, unconditionally chosen" apostles who were the first to trust in Christ and the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, who were being grafted in according to Romans 10 and 11 for the purpose of "provoking" hardened Israel to "jealousy" so that some of them might turn from their unbelief and be saved.

If all those who are eventually saved are saved by an 'effectual call' then why would God want to provoke them to Jealousy. He didn't provoke Paul to Jealousy, he just effectually called him. Where does this jealousy fit in to the 5 points of Calvinistic soteriology?

With all due respect, this is evident.

Like Jimmy has already very clearly pointed out you are operating under a "double standard." If you can apply national election individually why can't we apply national hardening individually?

Speaking of a "convenient depository of difficult scriptures," that is what Calvinism has based the heart of its system on for generations.

Let's just flip your argument and see what we come up with: The cases of group election I found were nations exemplified by their leader (ie Abraham). The cases of individual election I found were the result of a person's own faith-which fits in perfectly with the Arminian concept of free will.

Jimmy, looks like your right, he is appling a double standard.

Only after God bears them out with great patience are they hardened and prepared for destruction. They are not born hardened and prepared for destruction as your system teaches.

How? Saying that Gentiles can hear unlike the Hardened Israelites doesn't mean all of them will respond to the call, it just means they might. Look at the passage again its says, "otherwise they might hear..understand..turn...and be healed." It doesn't say if they are not hardened and hear that they are forced to convert.

I agree his is referring to the Church which is made up of all nations. But the emphasis on this passage is that Israel is hardened because of their rejection and salvation is being presented to another nation. This shows my point that there are distinctions between the three groups I mentioned.

A pure difference of semantics. Israel is "unwilling" to turn to God because they cannot "see, hear, understand or recieve things of God." They are hardened, otherwise they might be willing to "see, hear, understand or recieve."

I'm not following you on this one brother. Please expound.

You mean like Calvinist are predisposed to weld together individual and group election?

What is the difference in the teaching just becasue you apply it to the nation of Israel rather than an individual who may be affected by it?

You call what you just argued "set on a sound scriptural foundation?" Only if you apply double standands, and ignore most of Romans 10 and 11. Not to mention Acts and Matthew. We haven't even got to Mk 4 or John 12.

Come on Huckleberry, I thought you were a faster draw.

 

I think Bill's reply pretty much blew your arguments out of the water, Huck. Way to go Bill!

But I wanted to comment on this quote:

I replied to this in another thread maybe you missed it, so I repost it here for you:

Could it be that Paul is merely stating the order of events that take place in the life of ones who those who have expressed their love for God (it is in past tense).

He may not have mentioned man's response to God's call in this text, but there are many texts that don't mention God's Grace in the process of one being saved. Does that mean that we assume that it doesn't exist within the process? Of course not. Paul in just two chapter later says, "How can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without a someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?"

Nothing in this senquece is mentioned about God's effectual call or even his grace. Are we to assume that neither of these play a part? No text stands alone. Just because Paul doesn't mention every part of the process doesn't mean it's not involved.

If you look at Romans 8 you can see that Paul is focusing on what God does, not on what man's response is, so for Paul to not mention man's faith in response to God's calling in no way proves that it's not necessary. Even Calvinist teach that no one will be saved apart from faith in Christ, therefore we must all admit that faith has to fit in the Romans 8 sequence somewhere.

The argument is what part does faith play and what is its source, which we have been debating under other topics and using scripture that actually mentions faith as a condition for salvation and even the receiving of the Spirit. (ie. Gal 3:14)

 

No, I don't think I missed your point. I simply disagree with using it as a generally applicable premise when discussing the issue of election.

I reserve the right to dissent later but I didn't find anything in this section immediately objectionable.

The same place as the preaching of the gospel. It is the means to accomplish the intended end. This general attempt to make Jews jealous does not directly relate to individual election.

With all due respect, this is evident.</font>[/QUOTE] OK, Bill. Let's keep this above the belt. I was honest enough to say that I had not looked up every instance of hardening in the Bible but only enough to accurately assert that there is more than one application of the term. For you to make this generalization is unfair if not dishonest.

... and as I responded, his statement is not proven.

I don't think that is what I did. I think I said that in the case of Jacob it was both. If you think that Jacob was not chosen as a patriarch and called as an individual then I am willing to listen to your arguments.

BTW, I would not argue against the obvious. A national hardening affects individuals.

Biased generalizations don't prove anything. I was speaking directly to the premise you proposed which does provide you with an out on texts relating to election.

Great we have at least one basic agreement. But this has nothing to do with the source of that faith nor the choosing of God.

As it also does calvinism. I don't deny God's chosen means of saving the elect by grace through faith- that's the hypercalvinist's venue.

I am sorry Bill... but neither of you have proven this accusation. Saying it and repeating it doesn't make it so.

Only after God bears them out with great patience are they hardened and prepared for destruction. They are not born hardened and prepared for destruction as your system teaches. </font>[/QUOTE] I am not sure how your response relates to the quote. However, my system says that people are born lost with a sin nature that infects everything they do.

I did not say nor do I believe that God predestines some to hell from conception. Scripture does not declare this idea.

I agree his is referring to the Church which is made up of all nations. But the emphasis on this passage is that Israel is hardened because of their rejection and salvation is being presented to another nation. This shows my point that there are distinctions between the three groups I mentioned.</font>[/QUOTE] It shows the distinction but does not establish a basis for different methods of salvation for Jews and Gentiles whether they be hardened or not. The nation of Israel on whole was hardened to reject the Messiah. This hardening had an affect on many individuals but it was not universal. Those Jews who were not effected by the national hardening were saved in the same way as the Gentiles. Those who were lost were likewise condemned in the same way as unrepentant Gentiles by acting in perfect harmony with their sin nature.

No. I don't think so. Their inability is a direct result of their unwillingness.

If the Jews had not been hardened but instead had accepted Christ then God's purpose (the salvation of the Gentiles during this age of grace) would not have been accomplished. Of course, that would mean that it wasn't His purpose to begin with but that really isn't what we're discussing.

Someone might be but I am not. I believe Israel was elected as a nation as scripture teaches and also that individuals are elected.

Again, this is unestablished and therefore is simply argumentative.

I didn't ignore it. I simply stated that I hadn't gotten to it. However, I did respond to Romans 11 in my reply to Jimmy.

BTW, if you think I have ignored something specifically then identify it specifically. I am more interested in dealing with the substance of our conversation rather than debating tricks.

My draw may not be that good but my aim seems to be dead on.

 

Hi Bill;
A quote from you;
--------------------------------------------
All the Israelites deserved to be hardened, but in order that God's purpose of reconciling the world to himself might prevail he reserved for himself a Remnant that were not hardened, but were called to faith in Christ just as the Gentiles were. Out of the Remnant God selected 12 individuals to carry the message to the world, these were his "preappointed, effectually called, unconditionally chosen" apostles who were the first to trust in Christ and the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, who were being grafted in according to Romans 10 and 11 for the purpose of "provoking" hardened Israel to "jealousy" so that some of them might turn from their unbelief and be saved.
-------------------------------------------------
If all the 12 were unconditionally elected then are you saying that Judas will be in Heaven right along with the rest? pardon me but the disciples were Jews so how does that provoke Jews to jealousy? I believe that the Jews were provoked to jealousy by the gentiles being drawn.
Romanbear

 

Ok, for simplicity, length and clarity I'm only going to address the arguments that have real substance:

Romans 11:14
"...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them."

Now, Scott, I assume that individual election has to do something with being saved. Right? How does this verse fit into what you just stated?

Ok, fine that's what I wanted to hear. All that other junk was just a waist of time. National hardening has effects on individuals as does national election. So, we can move off of that point.

Different methods of salvation? The only ones who are saved "differently" were the apostles who were effectually appointed to a specific task. I believe these are the 12 (Note to Romanbear: I include Paul not Judas); that are chosen by Christ or you could say that God gave them to Christ as seen in John 6 and 17.

Everyone who is saved is saved by Grace made possible by Christ's atoning work on the Cross. This grace is applied through faith for those who hear the gospel, but for those who were appointed as messengers or apostles of that gospel, God divinely secured their salvation and their appointing to apostleship during His work on earth.

But, back to the point. Gentiles who hear the gospel are saved in the same way the Jews are, "By grace through faith." The point I'm making is that some Jews cannot believe because they are hardened (John 12:37-41). This is not the case with the Gentiles, none of them have been hardened yet, because none of them have refused the message of God yet. Hardening requires that one hears the message and refuses it thus causing their hearts to grow more and more dull to the things of God. The Gentiles haven't yet recieved a message from God, therefore they have not rejected it and become hardened.

Do you mean every Jew except the Remnant, or every Jew period?

What affect exactly did it have on these individuals?

I agree. (With the exception of the Apostles--see above) So we agree that the Remnant and the Gentiles were saved by grace through faith. Right?

I agree. (But I'm sure not in the same way you mean.)

Besides the questions I've asked here is what you need to address:
1. When Jesus in speaking in John 6 he is speaking to Israel, most of which were hardened and unable to believe (John 12:37-41). How does this not affect your intepretation of Jesus' words concerning "man's inability" in John 6?
2. Again, why harden a group of people who, according to Calvinism, was already deaf and blind to the things of God due to the Fall of Adam?

Your aiming at the straw man you contructed and you may want to check your gun, cause I don't think it's loaded.

 

Hi Scot J
aquote from you;
------------------------------------
I was hoping the humor wouldn't be lost on everyone before Romanbear accused me of being arrogant again.
-------------------------------------
Wow I'm sorry I don't know what came over me. Can you ever forgive me?
Romanbear

 

...then the very next thing you do is quote me out of context.

Romans 11:14
"...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them."

Now, Scott, I assume that individual election has to do something with being saved. Right? How does this verse fit into what you just stated?</font>[/QUOTE] As I stated, this jealousy fits into my view just like the preaching of the Gospel. It is a means to reach an end. That does not identify who decided what the end would be. I believe it is God in His sovereignty that determines who is elect and by what method they will be saved. If I understand you correctly, you would say that man himself decides whether he will accept God's method for salvation.

Talk about setting up straw men. I am not sure how I could have been more clear and you still found a way to argue against something I did not say.

I hate to point out the obvious but all Christians are appointed to specific tasks. We are called to fulfill His purpose.

And cross referencing these passages with Eph 1 and Romans 8-9, you could say that God gave all of the elect to Christ.

This is a false dichotomy not based in any scripture that I know of. The apostles were definitely appointed to a very special purpose but that doesn't establish that the rest of the redeemed were not.

On this point we are agreed but by whose will? That is the pertinent question that marks the boundary between our positions.

Likewise, some if not most Gentiles will refuse the Gospel.

Huh? That isn't what Romans 1:16-20 teaches. This scripture says that no one has an excuse. All are guilty.

I hope you are not promoting the Hyles view of salvation that says that the only sin that needs to be repented of for salvation is unbelief. Man is condemned for his sin, not a sin. It is not necessary for God to harden individuals in general. It is contrary to man's sin nature to seek or accept Christ until God acts on a person to make them a new spiritual creature.

No. Being hard toward God is a natural result of man's sinful self-will. It doesn't require hearing a message. It requires rejection of the God who is made apparent by nature as well as special revelation but also embracing sin which all men natural will do.

Romans 1 says they have received a message from God and rejected it. They harden themselves throught their sinful attitude.

Do you mean every Jew except the Remnant, or every Jew period?</font>[/QUOTE] I mean precisely what I said. The nation on the whole was hardened. Some individuals were not. If you wish to call them a remnant then that is your prerogative but this opinion does not establish a valid biblical link to any of the text pertaining to "remnants". Nor does it validate your assertion that the "remnant" equals elect Jews standing in distinction from all Gentiles which you would say are not elect at all.

What affect exactly did it have on these individuals?</font>[/QUOTE] It had the effect of leaving them to pursue their own sinful desires according to their sinful nature.

I hope you can forgive me. This is more in depth than I have time to address now but will try to get to it later.

Loaded with depleted uranium tipped 50 caliber bullets. I have constructed no straw men... straw men don't dodge.

[ March 06, 2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Sounds like you may have wounded him Bill?

 

Nope. Not a scratch. The only person likely to be wounded by blanks is the shooter. In spite of your cheerleading, Bill has yet to fire a live round.

 

Worthless sematics.

How does Israel being hardened change anything.
This still remains the same regardless
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draws him."
It's hard to wound anyone by shooting blanks

 

In John 6 Jesus is speaking to Jews but there is no reason to limit His comments to Jews. In fact, in verses 44 and 47 Jesus alludes to who He is talking about- those who will be raised up at the last day, those that believe unto everlasting life.

Additionally, Matthew 12 tells us that Jesus would proclaim justice to the Gentiles and that they would trust His name. Luke 2 says Christ was a light to the Gentiles. In Acts 11:17, we are told that the Gentiles received the same gift as the Jews in verse 18 the gift is clarified- God gave them the repentance that leads to life. Acts 13:48 tells us that as many of the hearing Gentiles that were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts 2:39 tells us that the promise of forgiveness of sins was for the Jews, their chidren, and "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Acts 26:22-23 says, "So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

These scriptures and many more like them demonstrate that there is no biblical reason to create the division that you do in order to maintain your presuppositions. Moreover, these scriptures support my contention that the nation of Israel was hardened so that the Messiah would be rejected thus ushering in the church age in which God dealt directly with the individual.

And again, Israel was chosen to be God's ambassadors. He established their theocracy and gave access to Himself through their system of laws and sacrifices. Christ fulfilled the law.

In God's plan, it was necessary for Israel as a nation to reject their Messiah which they did. They conspired against and condemned Him leading to His crucifixion... according to God's plan from the foundation of the world. This sacrifice bought our redemption. The national hardening was necessary to accomplish God's divine redemptive purpose.

None the less, every individual involved in this worst miscarriage of justice in all of human history bore their own sin. They did as they willed according to their sinful nature. They were fully responsible. Acts 2:23, 37-39

 

Could it be that Paul is merely stating the order of events that take place in the life of ones who those who have expressed their love for God (it is in past tense). </font>[/QUOTE] I think Pastor Larry answered many of your arguments concerning this text in another thread but since you asked I will give you my take.

No. I don't think your proposition is valid. The text links each element and makes them interdependent. Surely there is an order but not to the effect you desire. Everything is predicated on the first elements- foreknowledge/predestination. Not a human action or choice.

That is why we take scripture on the whole. Different scriptures deal with different aspects of sotierology but none of them can be ignored.

This particular text deals with God's purpose and actions, not his prescribed methods for man. The requirements for faith, belief, and repentance are not present because that isn't the subject. The subject is God's divine purpose for saving the chosen.

Yes it does... God justifies those that are called (effectual call) with a justification that is not deserved (grace).

 

If His comments are unique to them in that context, yes there is a reason to limit His comments to them.

Yes, don't you believe the Remnant will be raised up in the last day? That doesn't mean that he must be referring to everyone who will be raised up. Plus if you look at verse 39 and 40 Jesus expresses the ultimate purpose for both those whom have "been given to him by the Father" and those who believe in Christ through their message:

6:39
This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day.

6:40
For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Jesus is speaking about two groups of people here just like he does in John 17 when he prayes for those "God has given him" in the first part of the chapter, and then for those who believe in Christ through their message in the second part of the chapter.

Why does Jesus repeat himself saying "I will raise them up on the last day" twice in just two sentences? He is distinguishing between two groups of people, both of which will be raise up on the last day. The first group is the one "who the Father gave the Son" namely the Apostles, or those who were able to learn from the Son in the flesh. The second group are those who hear their message and believe in Christ.

Huge crowds followed Him, and He healed them all. 16 He warned them not to make Him known, 17 so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 18 Here is My Servant whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom My soul delights; I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He will proclaim justice to the nations.
"Gentiles" is sometimes translated "nations" when it is being used to speak about everyone. I don't disagree that Christ's words are also profitable to Gentiles, its just that some of his teachings are specific to Israel as seen in John 12:37-41; Mark 4:10; Matt. 21:41-43 and many other passages.

Yes, and your point is...? The fact that this passage distingushes between what Christ does for Israel and the Gentiles goes to support the my premise that they are two different groups of people that Christ deals with in different ways according to his purpose.

30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples-- 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and glory to Your people Israel.[i/]

Once again, I really don't know what difference this makes. We both agree that once the gospel was taken to the Gentiles that they too recieved the gift of the Spirit through faith. I'm not sure why you are pointing this point of agreement out to me.

Calvinists interpret this and other passages which are obviously speaking about a national appointing or a national electing to individuals being appointed or elected. Remember that during this time the Arminian verses Calvinist debate is not on anyones mind. The big issue is God's allowing or choosing or appointing the gospel to be presented to the Gentiles so that they can now enter covenant with the Father. This is the BIG NEWS of the day which everyone is debating. So for Luke to say, "all who had been appointed to eternal life believed," in the context of the Gentiles being presented the message could simply mean that the Gentile nation, who was appointed or chosen by God to recieve the message of eternal life, were believing and being saved. So it would be like this, "all (both Jews and Gentiles) had been appointed to eternal life( and people of both nations) believed." Based on sooo many other texts in Acts I don't believe that Luke was in any way trying to teach that only certain individual Gentiles were appointed to eternal life, while the rest were left to eternal destruction. If that were the case, I think a bit more explaination would have been given here and throughout the text. And I don't believe many of the more "Arminian" passages would have been worded in such a way that leads people to believe the choice is ours.

So, Luke is merely pointing out the fact that the Gentiles were appointed or chosen for eternal life which is being demonstated by their faith in the message.

Let's look at this whole passage:

"What shall we do, brothers?" 38 Peter said to them, "Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.

Which comes first? Belief then comes the HS

39 For God's promise was made to you and your children, and to all who are far away—all whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

How does the Lord call them to himself. Through the Gospel (2 Thess 2:14), and through the HS (Rev. 22:17)

40 Peter made his appeal to them and with many other words he urged them, saying, "Save yourselves from the punishment coming on this wicked people!" 41 Many of them believed his message and were baptized, and about three thousand people were added to the group that day.

Would a Calvinist ever say, "Save yourselves..."???
NEVER! NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!

Once again, I don't disagree with this. Even the fact that he just doesn't say "to proclain light to all people," proves my point that during the writing of the NT the distinction between these two groups of people was greater than you and I could understand in our world today. I'm not dening that Christ's message and His "light" was for us all.

I didn't create the division, as I have clearly shown the division is obvious in the text, you've just ignored it so as to maintain your pressuppositions.

I agree. But this view still causes a huge problem for Calvinism's teaching of "total inability." Why does God need to harden a group of people who were born enemies of God and dead in their trespasses in the way Calvinism means. Why would he need to make them like the Fall has already made them. You say, "the nation of Israel was hardened so that the Messiah would be rejected," but Scott if "total depravity" is true then wouldn't they have rejected Him anyway just by their natural tendencies due to the Fall? Do you see the contradiction in your logic? (go back to Acts 28:26-28 and look at the word "otherwise" which sets off what Israel could have done if they were not hardened and you will find the ability of natural man)

Scott, you didn't answer the question. We agree that Israel was chosen by God and He gave them access to Himself through the system of laws and sacrifices. We also agree that Christ fulfilled the law, but the question was this: Why did God hardened a group of people, meaning to make them unable to see, hear, understand, repent and be healed by God, if indeed they were already born deaf, blind, unable to understand or repent because of the Fall as Calvinism's teaching of Total Inability insists? In short, why deafen a deaf man? Or, why blind a blind man?

The truth is that natural man is not deaf, blind and unable to understand and repent when presented with the gospel and called by the HS (who calls all to come Rev. 22:17). Deafness, blindness and the inability to understand is only true of those who are hardened.

I agree.

Worst miscarriage of justice? God's plan is not the "worst miscarriage of justice." These men had already made their choice, God hardened them within that choice in order to accomplish His purpose, just as He did with Pharoah. What Judas and the other hardened Israelites received is exactly what they deserved because they chose to disobey a God who had held out his hands to them, an obstinate people, for generations.

 

If His comments are unique to them in that context, yes there is a reason to limit His comments to them.</font>[/QUOTE] The only way to make these comments "unique" is to say that Christ did not come to bring salvation to the Gentiles as well as Jews and/or that there is a different means of salvation for the two groups.

Yes, don't you believe the Remnant will be raised up in the last day?[/quote][/qb] This text neither states nor implies that it is talking about a remnant. It says that "no one" comes to the Father without being drawn. All of Christ's redeemed will be raised up at the last day, not just a Jewish remnant.

It does unless He didn't mean "no one" when He said "no one". The only way you can achieve what you want to in this text is to mutilate it. Jesus didn't say "no Jew", He said "no one".

This dichotomy exists only in your imagination. The text does not establish this separation. You once again are in effect saying there is more than one means of salvation and perhaps now even more than one resurrection of the saints.

All of your twisting and distorting is unnecessary. Let the scripture say what it says and stop trying to dissect it so that the individual parts are malleable outside their context.

Verses 6-7 of Ch 17 are talking about the Disciples without much doubt. That does not limit the scope of Ch 6 since vs 2 is most certainly a statement about all of the redeemed and much more closely parallels the language of Ch 6.

No. He is establishing that He is talking about the same group by identifying them as those that will be raised up at the last day

John 17:2 establishes that these were given to Him by the Father.

Some are. However, you have extended this principle past its legitimate boundaries because of your bias against biblical election.

Yes, and your point is...? The fact that this passage distingushes between what Christ does for Israel and the Gentiles goes to support the my premise that they are two different groups of people that Christ deals with in different ways according to his purpose. </font>[/QUOTE] Hardly, Luke 2:30-32 identifies Christ as God's salvation to all people.