Why do Calvinists on this board think my arguments are "new"???

I'm not trying to take sides here, honestly. But, I'm not privy to the other discussions you all have had on this issue and this does seem like a good question.

If we are born depraved why would God need to harden people or hide the message in parables? That does seem a bit contradictory. Can someone point me to the Calvinistic response to this? Thanks.

 

To explain this, I'll give a clip from my predestination page:
A group in general can be blinded, and individuals still have the choice to either go along with the group or repent. Just look at how this modern society has been portrayed as "blinded" and coming under God's judgment (including by Calvinist preachers). Does that mean none of us can repent? Truly, Western society is much like the Israel of Bible times, taking pride in a heritage of the religion of God. But like in the Bible, man had corrupted it, and people rebelled, and now people have made up their own minds about God and the way to live, and want to hear nothing about the truth of the Bible, as morality plunges ever further and further. So we are truly "hardened" and "blinded" and it can once again be said that the truth is not "given" people, but this is not from God witholding any chance or ability to believe to each individual, (based on a decree from "before they were born") but just the general state of the society at large, and people do have a choice to follow it or turn to God. Remember, the two groups God through his prophets and Paul is addressing is "the children of the flesh" and "the children of promise". One is the group God has given His truth, so what is the other? Blinded!
Once again, this is regarding a person's state at that given time, not for eternity. Still, not all were like this, and some did repent. In Matt.13, right after quoting Isaiah, Jesus points out that the "prophets" and "righteous men" also weren't granted seeing and hearing what was granted to the disciples (v.17) but they were by no means "reprobates". If these passages were referring to the unconditional reprobation of a group as the sum of all of its individuals, it would preclude any righteous people in Israel. So even if some are "elected" out of this, it must be the group in general that is hardened, and only certain individuals specifically.
Where individuals are already sinners and wouldn't need to be "hardened" or "blinded" in order to be condemned, still, groups can hold a lot of truth and righteousness (even if every member doesn't obey it), or God can allow them to be completely darkened. Of course, God's "purpose" in blinding and hardening Israel is to show that having a nation under His Law did not make people righteous. This was for preparing the way for the Gospel of Christ, not reprobating individuals to Hell.

They do overlap, where God hardens the group because the individuals in it have hardened themselves:
Matt.13:11-15 where Jesus quotes from Isaiah, note v.12 "whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, but whoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he has", and the second part of the quote in v.15 where "lest at anytime they should see...and should be converted, and I should heal them" is explained by "for this people's heart is waxed gross...and their eyes they have closed" not God's initial action. So where Romans 9 looks at the hardening of Israel from the "unconditional" (according to a foreordained purpose) viewpoint, there is also the element, seen here where this is simply because of the fact that they [as individuals] had ample opportunity to repent, but went beyond the time God had given them, and were "given over".

I emphasized the separateness of the two reasons of hardening to try to be more true to "God hardens whom He will" and not make it but so dependant on what the people themselves do.
Still, this can be understood by:
Ultimately, everyone was stubborn and deserved hardening, but God obviously doesn't harden everyone who deserves it. Every person who dabbles in perversion doesn't suffer what Romans 1 describes. But it was their choice to be in that position in the first place. Still, there was nothing stopping individuals in Israel, plus maybe even Pharaoh himself, (AFTER God's "purpose" was fulfilled), from eventually coming to faith. So this is the proper understanding of "vessels" and God "hardening or having mercy on whomever He will".

Of course, that has gone into individuals again, but the point was, there was a distinction between individual and group hardening, and temporal and permanent hardening. Maybe your concept is a bit clearer, but as I said, I have to study and weigh it more.

 

Well, recall that you admittedly have a slightly different position from many opther Calvinists. Luther and others may have said "sovereignty", but the way this is interpreted IS as God hardening people in these passages to make them the vessels of wrath, meaning eternal damnation. Most other Calvinists on the board, every time someone question's God's preterition process, Romans 9 was thrown up and Calvinists strongly disputed the idea when I first posited it, that the hardening was not synonymous with the preterition of individuals. Since "hardening" was there contrasted with "mercy", it WAS assumed that this was damnation "compared with the salvation of the elect". If you differ with the other Calvinists on that, then you can't speak for all Calvinists in claiming to be "misrepresented", but that is generally how responses to Calvinism are handled these days.

 

Because what they say at first suggests "something else", but when challenged, then they try to clarify "Oh, it's just passive "preterition". Still, the point was, even if they try to say that, it is still in the scripture portrayed as an deliberate action of God.

 

Are you suggesting Jesus is saying these prophets and righteous men didn't hear or see what the disciples did because they were "hardened"?

Romans says, "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." I don't see anything in there that says God hardens conditionally, depending on whether the person first hardens himself.

Again, your whole argument pivots on the assumptions that people start out able to respond to the Gospel, hardening is THE means by which God "disables" people from responding to the Gospel, and that God only applies this to people who have already hardened themselves.

But those assumptions remain entirely unproven from scripture. So your post is built entirely on circular reasoning (you start with the conclusion and then try to demonstrate it from selected texts), and arguing from ignorance (you assume something is true without providing any scripture that says it is true).

The assumptions also leave unexplained the many passages that say the heart is desperately wicked, that no man seeks after God, that no one can come to Jesus unless it is given to him by the Father, etc., none of which even hint that hardening is involved.

But the most egregious error is that of assuming that the purpose of hardening is to separate the person from salvation. I have already given an example of why God hardened Pharaoh that has nothing to do with salvation. There is no speculation here. God clearly states His purpose in hardening Pharaoh. (Emphasis mine.)

It does not say "I will harden his heart so that he will not be able to hear and turn and be saved."

I could speculate that God hardened the Jews in order to get them to crucify Jesus, which again, has nothing to do with separating them from salvation -- the purpose is actually to provide salvation. (Note that I try to label speculation as speculation, unlike these claims about hardening, which some of you not only treat as true without any substantiation, you go on to interpret the texts as if they are true).

 

They as individuals weren't hardened, but Israel they were apart of was. This to prove that blinding of the group does not necessarily blind each individual.

I addressed this in the post you are quoting from. sometimes it is not conditional, sometimes it is, sometimes it is a bit of both between the group and individual.

That doesn't mean they haven't been explained. We weren't addressing those passages here.

"None seek after God" has been cited many times, but "seek" in the Hebrew and Greek word translated here means to "frequent" or "follow" ("for pursuit or search"), or "search out", "investigate", "crave", "demand", and ultimately "worship". God giving an offer of salvation to man, and man accepting (of his own will) does not violate this, as that does not constitute things like "craving", "demanding", or even "pursuit", "search" and "investigate" in a sense that man initiates it. Man certainly doesn't on his own worship God (which these senses are really pointing to, for one "craving" Him would worship Him [properly]), and that is the point of the Psalm Paul quoted from. Paul's own context was the sinfulness of all men in general, Jew as well as gentile, not an individual's inability to repent. (Because the Jews thought only gentiles were "sinners", yet the Psalm is pointing out their sin as well). It has nothing to do with man responding to a call.

None Can come Unless Called: John 6:45 gives us the reference to several Old Testament passages prophesying God's outpouring of His Spirit on "all flesh" (Is.54:13, Jer.31:34, Micah 4:2). Before, God had only called Israel, and only the prophets had the Spirit. But now, Israel was "hardened" as Romans 9 teaches, so that's why they (who should have been first in heralding the Messiah) were not being called then. Christ was beginning His following with the disciples, and no one could become apart of this group unless called, but this doesn't say that only certain (and relatively few at that) people would ever be called when salvation was opened up after His death and resurrection. All would be drawn then (ch.12:32), as His convicting Spirit would be poured out on all.

I addressed this in the second response.

Once again, others have suggested that it does have to do with that, using arguments such as "if there's free will, what if noone decided to crucify Christ"; and when I pointed out that many of the Jews who crucified Christ (who He told were not His sheep) had repented in Acts, that was disputed almost as improbable.

 

Elaborate on this. Do you mean to say that all of Israel will be saved, including the dead, at the end of this temporary condition. If so, does this mean that in truth they have died as believers; or are you simply saying that only that group who is alive at the end of this temporary condition will be saved? In this case, I wonder, will the Arminians and free-willers represented here on the C/A forum cry out against such injustice perpetrated by God the Creator for the exercise of His sovereignty in this way?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Hey, Brother Bill, are you aware there is a thread addressed specifically to you where, as Ricky Ricardo would say, "You have some 'splaining to do."?

 

What is it about the Jews at the end of this present time that will cause them to not rebel against God and thus not be further hardened by God and for this they are then able to believe?

Just trying to understand how this makes God more just than the Calvinistic view of election.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

I don't believe anyone, Calvinist or not, should have any further interaction with Brother Bill, or whoever he is, until he goes to the thread with his name on it and explains his actions to the moderators.

 

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! More than you care to know my friend, but always remember things aren't always as they appear. </font>[/QUOTE]Sometimes intentionally so. Which makes that statement perhaps the pinnacle of irony.

 

I see I am going to have to bring Romans 11 out and show that to provoke is not as you beleive from this chapter, I was hoping you would discover this, but naw,

Bro. Bill,

Without any helps let us establish what is jealousy from a Scriptural standpoint.

Can we say that Phineas was jealous/zealous for the Lord is that satisfactory?

In this way, then the provocation of Israel to jealousy was nothing more than a seeking to revive that zealous feeling.

Bro. Dallas