Absolutely amazing!!!

Good point Eric. If people were hardened from accepting Jesus as the political leader, what's to say that passages like John 6 aren't just refering to those coming to Him as a political leader and not spiritually?

You have created a new problem for your system.

 

What's your point? Are you saying God hardened their stomachs?

Plus, based upon the scripture do you really think that at that time apostles even had "any understanding of the true spiritual significance of Jesus person and mission?" This shows us nothing.

 

No it's not. I think the general belief is that the hardening increased guilt and condemnation. </font>[/QUOTE]This is the root of falacy Larry. How exactly do you increace guilt? How do you increase condemnation? And how do you increase total depravity? Your system doesn't leave room for hardening which is why you try so desprately to right it off as a non-issue.

 

You are wrong. I think very intently about each of the posts that I respond to. The Lord and I know your accusations about my thoughts are false so I don't have to answer to you in that regard.

Here we go again. You pretty much admit that your answer wasn't thought out and then right it off as not mattering that much.

Exactly which part of the scripture is more important than other parts? You obviously think some scripture is more important than other parts because you believe that scriptures teaching of hardening is not that important.

This again?!?

I've shown you direct quotes from Arminius himself supporting my view. I've refered you to Adam Clarke Commentaries and you just don't like them because they are not modern enough for you. Come on!!! Deal with the issues and stop dismissing them because you don't know the scholars who support it. That is a mistake many throughout the Catholic church have made.

What did I say that is not true?

Consumed??? Just because I ask some questions on a debate board doesn't qualify me being "consumed." Speaking of consumed, how about a moderator of a debate board with thousands of posts. I could say you are consumed with Calvinism.

Personally, I like to think I'm consumed with understanding all of the scripture, not just the parts of it that fit into my narrow system of thought--but you wouldn't understand that.

Hello!?! It's not a doctrine I created. Hardening is taught in the scripture. Calvinists get mad at Arminians when they say things like "I don't believe in the doctrine of Predestination." Why? Because the Bible forces us to deal with the issue of predestination, regardless of how often scripture mentions it. All of us must have a doctrine of predestination, to ignore the issue all together is just a sign of ignorance and fear. By avoiding this issue you have exibited that in regard to the doctrine of hardening.

How does hardening not have to do with the Calvinistic issue of Total Depravity? Both intently deal with the nature of man and contradict each other on many levels.

One of the main support texts that Calvinists use is Romans 9-11 as section of scripture which is 'consumed' with the issue of hardening.

 

Unfortunately for you however none of the passages that speak of hardening are speaking of an increase of guilt or punishment. They instead speak of man's inablity to respond to the truths of God, something you have yet to deal with.

The part of Total Depravity that I have taken issue with teaches that man is born unable to see, hear, understand, believe and turn to God for healing.

The Bible clearly teaches that these characteristics are unique to one who have been hardened.

Do you agree or disagree with this? Why?

Then please educate me as to how your system does deal with the issues that have been raised instead of dismissing these arguments as being irrelevant. You may not intend to be dodging these issues but from my vantage point it sure seems that way.

 

Oh stop it Larry. I said "if I thanked you for that without giving any rebuttal then your right I must not of put much thought into it." You never pointed out where I simply thanked you for your answer without any rebuttal. In other words I don't believe that I just "thank you for it" as you implied.

Your argument was based upon how often the next mentions hardening as if the number of times a doctrine is taught determines its truth. I've shown numeous times the application and you still haven't addressed thost points.

How about the Nature of Man Larry?? You don't think Hardening has anything to do with the nature of man and the effect of sin on us??? Come on!!!!

History's mistakes are cyclical in nature. You should know that.

I've quoted Arminius numerous time and Clarke as well. I don't see you quote others that often either so what your point. This is a clear diversionary tactic. Deal with the scripture Larry.

I honestly don't remember you ever giving me this answer before. I've asked you to point it out to me from the archives (I'm sure you'll say you don't want to take the time to dig it up, oh well)

But know I've responded to your answer. Are you going to answer or are you going to run away from our discussion the way that you have the last two times we engaged each other?

The horse named 'truth' is trampling all over your system and you don't know how to handle it. Your diversions are not fooling anyone.

I agree. I only come here to find answers to arguements, its a fun past time, but I'll call you on it if you don't deal with the issues at hand. Someone has to.

Then deal with all of it and stop avoiding certain parts by saying "the Bible doesn't speak about it that much."

Let's see: I applied hardening to people inablity to see, hear, believe understand and turn to God for healing.

You apply to to man's becoming more condemned and guilty.

Which one of those best relates to the actual words of the texts that deal with hardening. Let's take a look shall we:

39 But the people couldn't believe, for as Isaiah also said, 40 "The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts – so their eyes cannot [/b]see, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them."

Hmmmm. The things I relate it to are actually mentioned right there in the passage. Go figure.

What presupposition regarding hardening are you referring to? You are purposefully being vague to avoid the obvious pitfall your system has created for itself.

Above all things this is the most frustrating comment you continue to make. I KNOW this is a real issue because I talk to well educated Calvinists in real life about this issue and they clearly struggle with it and admit those struggles. You are so concerned about what people might think of you on this post and appearing to "get beat" in a debate you pretend these arguements don't even apply. You're not fooling anyone Larry, but hey if it makes you feel better about yourself to dismiss these arguement as being irrelevant you go right ahead, but deep down you know better.

 

Oh stop it Larry. I said "if I thanked you for that without giving any rebuttal then your right I must not of put much thought into it." You never pointed out where I simply thanked you for your answer without any rebuttal. In other words I don't believe that I just "thank you for it" as you implied.

Your argument was based upon how often the next mentions hardening as if the number of times a doctrine is taught determines its truth. I've shown numeous times the application and you still haven't addressed thost points.

How about the Nature of Man Larry?? You don't think Hardening has anything to do with the nature of man and the effect of sin on us??? Come on!!!!

History's mistakes are cyclical in nature. You should know that.

I've quoted Arminius numerous time and Clarke as well. I don't see you quote others that often either so what your point. This is a clear diversionary tactic. Deal with the scripture Larry.

I honestly don't remember you ever giving me this answer before. I've asked you to point it out to me from the archives (I'm sure you'll say you don't want to take the time to dig it up, oh well)

But know I've responded to your answer. Are you going to answer or are you going to run away from our discussion the way that you have the last two times we engaged each other?

The horse named 'truth' is trampling all over your system and you don't know how to handle it. Your diversions are not fooling anyone.

I agree. I only come here to find answers to arguements, its a fun past time, but I'll call you on it if you don't deal with the issues at hand. Someone has to.

Then deal with all of it and stop avoiding certain parts by saying "the Bible doesn't speak about it that much."

Let's see: I applied hardening to people inablity to see, hear, believe understand and turn to God for healing.

You apply to to man's becoming more condemned and guilty.

Which one of those best relates to the actual words of the texts that deal with hardening. Let's take a look shall we:

39 But the people couldn't believe, for as Isaiah also said, 40 "The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts – so their eyes cannot [/b]see, and their hearts cannot

 

Larry, once again you avoid the debate with your diversions, you just can't deal with it can you?

Regardless of what is in the archives, I've rebutted your argument here and you still refuse to engage me exempt to say "Your wrong" Na na na boo boo.

I get me substance from a two year old.

Larry, you are always complaining about how incessant and long my posts are. Do you think anyone here really believes I just thank you for your post without rebuttal? When have I ever been known to do that? This is your claim, so you have to burden to prove it. Plus, I'm not sure how to go about finding things in the archives.

Just look at all the things you say to avoid the issue:

That's it? No support, no alternative interpretation for us to consider? This is a debate board Larry not a court room where you are the judge who decides what's right or wrong. I know you would like for it to be that, but its not. Here you actually have to back up what you say, yes even if your Pastor Larry the Moderator.

Be honest Larry, have you even read the two sources I did give you? Why do you keep saying I haven't supplied you any sources when I've given you two, one of which this very board was named for. Give me a break!

LIE! AGAIN.

Is Adam Clarke anyone? Is Jacobus Arminianus anyone?

Larry, just because you don't like the sources I give you doesn't mean you have the right to pretend they don't exists. This is so obviously a diversion ploy.

That's it? No rebuttal? I don't see where you dealt with hardening as it relates the the nature of man. I don't see where you answered my arguments concerning your answer. That's not "dealing" with it Larry.

THAT'S IT? "My deals more with the text."?????

What??!!??

I say hardening means men were unable to see, hear, understand, believe and turn to God for healing, which is exactly what the text says.

You say that it is an increase of guilt and condemnation without any scriptural backing.

Wow! Larry. Then you have the audacity to say that your view deals more with the text with out one argument, one bit of support, one text of scripture.

Oh, that's right, your Larry so you don't need to support your views.