Search results

Uhhh, well yeah...if they are not yet believing they would, in that sense, still be under judgement. But the point is whether they will certainly be condemned to hell (as the non-elect of your system would be). According to Paul, those being hardened/cut off can be saved/grafted back in as...

That is beside the point, Aaron. We are discussing the manner in which God actively communicates with his children, not whether or not you recognize his children as such. I suspect if we dug a bit we could find one of these with a quote speaking of God's guiding or directing them in one...

We agree on this point, assuming you define "free will" as I do. But, where does the bible say that God established the punishment to be total inability to respond to His appeal to be reconciled?

So, you don't believe God controls the GOOD thoughts and feelings of his children? Please explain?

I agree, but the point of Paul's diatribe is clearly to show why all Israel is not Israel. Israel is the LUMP of clay and God can choose to form an apostle out of that lump (noble/honorable use) and hardened another (common/dishonorable use) out of that same LUMP. Yet, even so, the lump being...

You say that as if I might have a problem with "your" translations. Your definitions don't change a thing. God has chosen to honor some of Israel, like Paul, and dishonor others, but that doesn't mean those chosen for "dishonor" cannot be saved. Paul spells that out VERY CLEARLY. He even...

From Paul just 10 verses later: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" The "lump" is in reference to Israel (the seed of Abraham), and Paul is making the point that from that SAME LUMP one 'seed' (Jacob)...

When your kid disobeys who is it that determines what his punishment will be? You or your kid? You make it sound as if "the Fall" has a power of its own or something. Who, besides God, determined the effects of the fall? We both agree that it resulted in men becoming enemies, but now can we...

I was hoping Aaron would answer this question...

Never got an answer to this one...

No, we are born enemies and God initiates reconciliation by sending the powerful appeal of the gospel. If we reject that appeal we are held to account. If we never hear that appeal we are held to account for whatever level of revelation we have received. Either way, it is unbelief in face of...

I couldn't agree more.:thumbs: I think it diminishes His Glory to suggest that He sincerely calls all men to be reconciled while relegating them to a condition of total inability from birth by which they can't willingly respond to that so-called genuine appeal.

Esau was mentioned as proof that God can choose a "seed" of Abraham for "common use" while choosing his brother (of the same seed) for a "noble purpose." Pharaoh was mentioned as an historical example of one God purposefully hardened or blinded in his rebellion so as to accomplish redemption...

What verse are you referring to that talks about his being hardened? I'll take a look at it.

Who is "us" in this passage? Those effectually made to believe or Those who chose to believe after hearing? This passage doesn't answer that question, it only tells us what God has determined to do with US, believers. It says nothing about God determining who will and will not believe...

Ok, just wanted to understand your view. I didn't realize some Calvinists believed that the elect have "always been His child" even prior to being born again or "becoming his child practically." That just seems strange to me, but to each his own, I guess.

But whose child are they prior to becoming God's child? Are they children of the world? The devil? If we are all born totally depraved aren't we all born "children of the devil" in that sense? Did Paul say, "1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used...

Let the record show that both Phillips and Piper's articles support the distinction I drew regarding Christ's "being able but not willing to sin," yet I once again was ridiculed and slandered for stating it. Go figure.

Wouldn't it be more consistent for Calvinists to argue that Jesus was unable to be willing to sin? I mean, surely you acknowledge that Jesus had the physical ability to eat the bread and throw himself off a cliff, right? Isn't that the distinction Calvinists typically make when attempting to...

In my view judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth which could otherwise lead to repentance. So God is not said to have caused or inticed anyone...he simply lets them continue down their already self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to...