Absolutely amazing!!!

[Eric B]

There were plenty enough people who had "accepted" him as a political leader, and that was one of the big problems. But as soon as He started talking about dying, at the same time as the seeminly blasphemous claims of deity, then they started rejecting Him.
The Hardening or blinding was a hiding of thee truth, as Calvinists themselves always emphasize in the discussions of Romans 9 and John 6. People coming to Him only as a political leader were obviously not in the truth, and this was the very blindness spoken of; so why would God be blinding them to prevent them from coming for those false reasons?

 

[William C]

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.

 

[tnelson]

John 6:26
Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

The crowds which followed Him were motivated by superficial desires of food rather than any understanding of the true spiritual significance of Jesus person and mission.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by tnelson:
John 6:26
Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

The crowds which followed Him were motivated by superficial desires of food rather than any understanding of the true spiritual significance of Jesus person and mission.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
If I thank you for that without any rebuttal then you are right, I must not have given it much thought.

Get off your high horse Bill. You had asked for a reason so I suggested one. It seems that you don't even give your own views and posts much thought so why would we expect you to give anyone else's much thought. I don't know that this is the best answer. I don't know that this topic really matters. I have asked you many times for people who defend it and you haven't given me any. It seems like you are making stuff up to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture. So be it ... but don't say stuff that not's true.

[qutoe]First, I asked; why did God hide the gospel in parables from blind people?

Is this supposed to be an answer to that question?[/quote]It has to do with whole hardening issue that you are consumed with, even though Scripture is not.

This is obviously something you haven't put a lot of thought into yourself.

No it's not. I am not consumed with it. I feel no need to try to get around the clear teaching of Scripture by inventing a doctrine of hardening. Scripture does not talk about it much. When it does, it does not connect it with the problems that you are trying to attach it to. It is your problem, not mine, and not Scripture's. You just need to get over your hang up with it and get on.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
so why would God be blinding them to prevent them from coming for those false reasons?

Because their false reasons could have been the basis of a political revolution that would, in human terms, have prevented him going to the cross. So their heart was hardened to prevent it. So your point is exactly mine.

 

[Eric B]

Maybe, but not really the way you think. The basic assumption of the Calvinists is that He hardened (or "passed over") them just because He didn't want to [ever] save them. So your point is proving ours; that that was not the reason for it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The basic assumption of the Calvinists is that He hardened (or "passed over") them just because He didn't want to [ever] save them.

No it's not. I think the general belief is that the hardening increased guilt and condemnation.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eric B:
The basic assumption of the Calvinists is that He hardened (or "passed over") them just because He didn't want to [ever] save them.

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.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You had asked for a reason so I suggested one. It seems that you don't even give your own views and posts much thought so why would we expect you to give anyone else's much thought.

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.

I don't know that this is the best answer. I don't know that this topic really matters.

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.

I have asked you many times for people who defend it and you haven't given me any. It seems like you are making stuff up to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture.

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.

So be it ... but don't say stuff that not's true.

What did I say that is not true?

It has to do with whole hardening issue that you are consumed with, even though Scripture is not.

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.

This is obviously something you haven't put a lot of thought into yourself.

No it's not. I am not consumed with it. I feel no need to try to get around the clear teaching of Scripture by inventing a doctrine of hardening.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
This is the root of falacy Larry. How exactly do you increace guilt? How do you increase condemnation?

By committing more sins and by commiting them with a high hand (i.e., knowing and blasphemous rejection such as the unpardonable sin). Surely you understand that guilty is liability for punishment. It is connected with the level of knowledge and intent in sin. Rev 20:11-15 teach that there are degrees of punishment in hell, based on the works (i.e., sins) written in the books. Therefore, a hardened heart sins more and does it with belligerence and gains greater guilt and thus greater condemnation.

And how do you increase total depravity?

You don't. I don't know anyone who says you do. Your lack of understanding the difference between these things is the root of your problem.

Your system doesn't leave room for hardening which is why you try so desprately to right it off as a non-issue.

If you knew my system, then you woulnd't say this ...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
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.

The post in question is one that you responded to and you said earlier that you didn't give it much thought. Now which are we to believe?? Did you not tell the truth here or there???

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.

No I don't. They don't all have equal relevance or application. That doesn't mean that some is less important. Surely you know that Bill.

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.

The mistake many in the Catholic church made was listening to people talk who didn't know what they were talking about. I haven't seen you cite Clarke or Arminius on this (but then I don't read all of your posts so I may have missed it). But theology, like everything else, moves on and stuff that gets answered sufficiently drops out of discussion.

What did I say that is not true?

You said that no Calvinist had ever responded to your position on hardening, when clearly that was not true. IN this post, you said that you always respond thoughtfully, when in fact you admit that you did not think through my previous post on a possible explanation for hardening.

Consumed??? Just because I ask some questions on a debate board doesn't qualify me being "consumed."

The fact that you rarely speak of anything else in this debate does. You seem to be a one horse man.

Speaking of consumed, how about a moderator of a debate board with thousands of posts. I could say you are consumed with Calvinism.[/quyote]You could ... unless you looked at my posting history. Then you would see that most of my posts are not in this forum, even moreso in recent days when I post very little. So if you said I was consumed with this, you would once again not be telling the truth. The reality is that I don't care that much what others believe about this. I think it is important but this is an internet debate board; it is not a local church.

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.

Here again, you are simply not telling the truth. I am consumed with understanding all of Scripture and how one part fits with another. I don't really have a system of thought per se. My system is the Bible. I take what it says and preach it.

It's not a doctrine I created. Hardening is taught in the scripture.

But not in the manner that you teach it. You seem to have created your own special application of it.

By avoiding this issue you have exibited that in regard to the doctrine of hardening.

I haven't avoided anything. I haven't seen much worthy of response.

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.

That is because of your system. I see no contradiction but I am not saddled with your presuppositions.

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.

I don't know that I accept your first or your second here. Rom 9-11 is not a main support text. It is a very good one but there are many others. And I don't think it is consumed with hardening. It talks about it ... So??? It doesn't talk about it in the way that you do.

Honestly, I just don't really care that much. You have not provided any convincing arguments for your position. You have not shown some great light on the matter. I am not really sure that we need to bend over backwards to answer something that does not appear to have been made worth answering.

 

[Eric B]

No it's not. I think the general belief is that the hardening increased guilt and condemnation.

well, most Calvinists have used Rom 9. as proof of "reprobation" or preterition (the opposite of elctiong to salvation). As you di not even like the term reprobation, I guess your position is a bit different, and what you said does agree with our view on that point.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
well, most Calvinists have used Rom 9. as proof of "reprobation" or preterition (the opposite of elctiong to salvation).

Which are you talking about?? Reprobation or preterition?? They are typically two different things. Reprobation is the decree of God to reprobate some, to send them to hell. Preterition is to simply pass over them, since their sin ensures their end of hell.

As you di not even like the term reprobation, I guess your position is a bit different, and what you said does agree with our view on that point.

That is because I am an infralapsarian. Supralapsarians believe in reprobation, typically speaking.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
By committing more sins and by commiting them with a high hand (i.e., knowing and blasphemous rejection such as the unpardonable sin). Surely you understand that guilty is liability for punishment. It is connected with the level of knowledge and intent in sin. Rev 20:11-15 teach that there are degrees of punishment in hell, based on the works (i.e., sins) written in the books. Therefore, a hardened heart sins more and does it with belligerence and gains greater guilt and thus greater condemnation.

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.

And how do you increase total depravity?

You don't. I don't know anyone who says you do. Your lack of understanding the difference between these things is the root of your problem.

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?

Your system doesn't leave room for hardening which is why you try so desprately to right it off as a non-issue.

If you knew my system, then you woulnd't say this ...

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.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Election is UNCONDITIONAL, but God elected SINNERS unto salvation. Supralapsarians believe that God elected and damned before sin ever entered into the equation. He then decreed the fall so that He could save the elect and damn the non-elect. The fall was the venue, if you will, whereby God would carry out this plan of salvation and damnation. That is Supralapsarianism.

Before the foundation of the world, having purposed to permit Adam to sin and to overcome evil with good, God reserved unto Himself a people. He chose them in Christ and predestinated them to live with Him for ever and ever. Adam actively disobeyed God, and thus, the sentence of death passed upon all men. These men are fallen and cannot be redeemed apart from the grace and mercy of God. That is what Primitive Baptists generally believe regarding the matter. Call it what you want to.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The post in question is one that you responded to and you said earlier that you didn't give it much thought. Now which are we to believe?? Did you not tell the truth here or there???

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.

They don't all have equal relevance or application. That doesn't mean that some is less important. Surely you know that Bill.

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!!!!

The mistake many in the Catholic church made was listening to people talk who didn't know what they were talking about. I haven't seen you cite Clarke or Arminius on this (but then I don't read all of your posts so I may have missed it). But theology, like everything else, moves on and stuff that gets answered sufficiently drops out of discussion.

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.

What did I say that is not true?

You said that no Calvinist had ever responded to your position on hardening, when clearly that was not true.

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?

Consumed??? Just because I ask some questions on a debate board doesn't qualify me being "consumed."

The fact that you rarely speak of anything else in this debate does. You seem to be a one horse man.

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 think it is important but this is an internet debate board; it is not a local church.

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.

[qb]My system is the Bible. I take what it says and preach it.

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

But not in the manner that you teach it. You seem to have created your own special application of it.

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.

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.

That is because of your system. I see no contradiction but I am not saddled with your presuppositions.

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

Honestly, I just don't really care that much. You have not provided any convincing arguments for your position. You have not shown some great light on the matter. I am not really sure that we need to bend over backwards to answer something that does not appear to have been made worth answering.

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.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The post in question is one that you responded to and you said earlier that you didn't give it much thought. Now which are we to believe?? Did you not tell the truth here or there???

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.

They don't all have equal relevance or application. That doesn't mean that some is less important. Surely you know that Bill.

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!!!!

The mistake many in the Catholic church made was listening to people talk who didn't know what they were talking about. I haven't seen you cite Clarke or Arminius on this (but then I don't read all of your posts so I may have missed it). But theology, like everything else, moves on and stuff that gets answered sufficiently drops out of discussion.

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.

What did I say that is not true?

You said that no Calvinist had ever responded to your position on hardening, when clearly that was not true.

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?

Consumed??? Just because I ask some questions on a debate board doesn't qualify me being "consumed."

The fact that you rarely speak of anything else in this debate does. You seem to be a one horse man.

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 think it is important but this is an internet debate board; it is not a local church.

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.

[qb]My system is the Bible. I take what it says and preach it.

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

But not in the manner that you teach it. You seem to have created your own special application of it.

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
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.

You don't even remember that I said it, as evidenced by your post. How would your remember your response. If you doubt me, look it up.

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.

Not tellign the truth again. My point has nothing to do with the frequency of mention determining truth. That is simply not true. My point is that Scripture does not talk about it enough for you to draw the conclusions you have drawn. In other words, what Scripture says does not permit the conclusions you have drawm from it. You need for Scripture to say much more than it does. It simply isn't there. I don't disagree with the doctrine of hardening. I do disagree with your convuluted interpretation of it.

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!!!!

I am already there and I agree with this. But your interpretation of it is wrong.

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

[q/b]Which is probably why you are bringing this up again.

[qb]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 cite others where necessary. My request for a source is based on this: You defend your position so poorly (perhaps due to the nature of this forum) that I would like to see someone who takes the time to argue for it and show the relevant passages in context. You are not able to do that here. I have dealt with teh Scripture and am willing to. That is not the point. The point is that you seem to be way off in your own little world where no one else is.

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)

I don't remember you asking me to point it out. I searched a little bit the other day for it but can't find it. Why don't you search for it?? Are you afraid of being shown to be inaccurate about your response??

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?

I don't have time to sit here and debate this stuff with you. You are so far off base, at least as you have presented it here, that it deserves little if any talk. You will not give anyone who argues your position so I can look it up and see what is actually being said.

but I'll call you on it if you don't deal with the issues at hand. Someone has to.[/qutoe]I have shown my willingness to deal with issues time and time again.

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

I have dealt with all of it.

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 see, and their hearts cannot [/b]

My deals more with the text. When you study it you will see that. Put aside your need to disprove Calvinism and view the texts in their contexts for what they say. It is pretty simple.

 

[William C]

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:

But your interpretation of it is wrong.

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.

I cite others where necessary. My request for a source is based on this: You defend your position so poorly (perhaps due to the nature of this forum) that I would like to see someone who takes the time to argue for it and show the relevant passages in context. You are not able to do that here. I have dealt with teh Scripture and am willing to. That is not the point. The point is that you seem to be way off in your own little world where no one else is.

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!

You will not give anyone who argues your position so I can look it up and see what is actually being said.

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.

I have dealt with all of it.

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.

My deals more with the text. When you study it you will see that.

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.