Adam's Fall = Total Depravity? ; Hardened = Non-Elect?

[olegig]

Post one line of John Calvin that you don't understand, and see if someone can help.

Sorry, I haven't spent much time reading the works and thoughts of other men. All I know of John Calvin is what is represented of him by others.
Is he perhaps being misrepresented here?

I don't think I said I did not understand, I said it was all confusing.

You said:
Election is NOT salvation, but TO SALVATION...
And then I said:
I can see the difference; but for there to be a difference, there must be something that makes it different.

I understand from your statement above in blue you feel there is a difference; but am confused about what you feel makes the difference.

Then you replied to my statement in red that the difference is in "choice" for openers:
Choice...to open....leads to believing

So now I ask:
ok,,whose choice?

I think my confusion with this theology would be helped by your answer to whose "choice" it is that "leads to believing"

 

[olegig]

Jarthur,

I apologize for post #61, it seems I was writing while you were answering. Therefore I posted before I saw your answer.

I gather from post #60 you feel the choice of whether one today believes the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ or not is dependant upon God's relationship to Jacob and Esau.

Am I close? I don't wish to put words in your mouth.

If my assumption above is true, then I see why so many feel they must hold dear the Replacement Theology of the Catholic church.

It always interests me to trace a man made theology back to its roots so then one can see where just a little, tiny misinterpretation of scripture leads to a world-wide theology.

Thank you for the journey.

Oh, one last thought, here is a verse you might wish to add to your list:

Jeremiah 17:10 (King James Version)
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

 

[Jarthur001]

Jarthur,

I apologize for post #61, it seems I was writing while you were answering. Therefore I posted before I saw your answer.

:smilewinkgrin:

I gather from post #60 you feel the choice of whether one today believes the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ or not is dependant upon God's relationship to Jacob and Esau.

The verse we were talking about when you came along was Romans 9.
I gave a answer to address that verse. Again, if you have another verse you want addressed just post it.

Am I close? I don't wish to put words in your mouth.

see above

If my assumption above is true, then I see why so many feel they must hold dear the Replacement Theology of the Catholic church.

You are way off base here.

It always interests me to trace a man made theology back to its roots so then one can see where just a little, tiny misinterpretation of scripture leads to a world-wide theology.

ok

Thank you for the journey.

its only just begin.

Oh, one last thought, here is a verse you might wish to add to your list:

OK

J

eremiah 17:10 (King James Version)
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Yes...in context...
9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

 

[Jarthur001]

Sorry, I haven't spent much time reading the works and thoughts of other men. All I know of John Calvin is what is represented of him by others.

If you never read the man, why would you say 3 times he is confusing?

Is he perhaps being misrepresented here?

I have no idea, because you have not stated why your confused.

I don't think I said I did not understand, I said it was all confusing.

So your saying you are confused on something you have not read, but you understand it? OK..now I'm confused

You said:
Election is NOT salvation, but TO SALVATION...
And then I said:
I can see the difference; but for there to be a difference, there must be something that makes it different.

I understand from your statement above in blue you feel there is a difference; but am confused about what you feel makes the difference.

Scripture

Then you replied to my statement in red that the difference is in "choice" for openers:
Choice...to open....leads to believing

So now I ask:
ok,,whose choice?

I think my confusion with this theology would be helped by your answer to whose "choice" it is that "leads to believing"

if your so confused, why not start by reading a book on the subject and stop guessing

 

[olegig]

If you never read the man, why would you say 3 times he is confusing?
Because it seems everyone that follows him has a different take on how things should be, so rather than ask about "Calvinism" I just ask each individual for their personal thoughts.

I have no idea, because you have not stated why your confused.
See above. I think it stems from the disagreement and confusion found in the camp itself.

So your saying you are confused on something you have not read, but you understand it? OK..now I'm confused
If it was a plain theology, then it seems everyone would interpret the man the same.

Scripture
Yes, that is what I was hoping for in connection with your election not but to statement.
Other than that, it is rather difficult to prove a negative with scripture.

if your so confused, why not start by reading a book on the subject and stop guessing

I suppose that would be an option; but then I am afraid I would only come away with yet another opinion as seems to be the case of everyone that has spent much time in Calvinism.
The other reason is I don't see it very fruitful. Would I be able to win more souls to Christ?

 

[Skandelon]

Good

In the passage Paul foresees objection from his readers.

Of course, did you read my post? This is called "diatribe." But what "reader" would have this objection? (An elect believer? A hardened Jew? An Arminian thinker?) That is the question I posed which seemed to fly right over your head. Calvinists presume it answers OUR (a non-Calvinists) objection and I showed you why that is not true, but you ran right past that argument to make obvious statements as if you are teaching me something I don't know or haven't addressed. If you are not going to even attempt to follow my arguments I really see no reason to continue this conversation. I am trying to be patient with you, but I have to know you are genuinely trying and I'm not convinced you are.

When Paul quotes the OT passage that says...I HATE ESAU....which is just before verse 13-14

And I'm sure you are aware that even Calvinistic scholars understand that the "hate/love" language is about a divine choice of one over the other and not literal "hatred" as we think of hatred. A God who expresses his universal love for the world and commands his followers to love their enemies does not "hate" Esau in the sense that you seem to be arguing. Most Calvinistic scholars also at least acknowledge the national representation of these two brothers. And most non-Calvinistic scholars recognize and address the effect this national election plays on the individuals within those nations.

Why do you read in to all the context?

It's called Hermeneutics. Look it up. You read your interpretation into the text based upon your Calvinistic dogma. For example, when you read Paul say, "God has mercy on some and hardens some," you read into that sentence that Paul means, "God selects a few people to save and condemns the rest to hell." You read that into the text based upon you Calvinistic presumptions.

I, on the other hand, practice the number 1 rule in Hermeneutics, which is to look at the WHOLE context. I read what Paul goes on to say about those being shown mercy and those being hardened. I read Paul teach that those being hardened might be provoked to envy and saved (11:14) and that they can be grafted back into the tree that they were cut off from if they leave their unbelief (11:23). I also read that those currently being show mercy better not get too arrogant because they can also be cut off. (11:20-21)

You have yet to deal with these passages. Why? Because they are not in the same chapter?

but 2 PAUL tells us....not Jarthur...but PAUL tells us your number two will not fit. Maybe you didn't read verse 11.
11And the children were yet unborn and had so far done nothing either good or evil. Even so, in order further to carry out God's purpose of selection (election, choice), which depends not on works or what men can do, but on Him Who calls [them],

Of course I have read verse 11. I'm just not reading a Calvinistic presupposition into that text. I've already explained to you the purpose of God's choice of Jacob. And believe it or not we do hold to a doctrine of election, its just not the same as yours. I would explain it to you again if I felt like it wouldn't fall upon deaf ears.

They object because man wants to be in control, and this passage tells us God is in control.

And if you were addressing my arguments with any sense of objectivity you would recognize and acknowledge that I agree that God is in control. He is in control over His temporary hardening of Israel and His engrafting of the Gentiles.

Really? wow...thanks for telling me.

Well, since you weren't willing to even consider chapters 10 and 11 I thought you might need that reminder, so you're welcome.

Context is king. If you follow the flow of the text, you have no argument.

You, the one not willing to address the chapters surrounding our passage, are telling me, "context is king?" Ironic.

I've been asking you to address the "flow of the text" sense we started this discussion and still nothing. You do realize these little one liners are not arguments, don't you?

15For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion (pity) on whom I will have compassion.


18So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills.

You do know re-quoting a verse I have already provided an interpretation for is not an argument, don't you? If this is going to be a discussion you must actually address my arguments and stop just restating your position and quoting scriptures with certain words emboldened. That is fruitless. I already know what you believe. I used to teach it.

In this verse he ends his argument he starts in verse 6 and 7. The point is to show that because you are born of Abraham, does not mean you are the elect.

I agree. The Gentiles have also be chosen to receive the gospel. The Gentiles have been grafted into the tree. All the while, Israel, with exception of the Remnant, are being hardened. This is very simple to understand. You don't have to agree with it, but if you could just restate my position in your own words so I know that you at least understand what you oppose that would be nice. So far I'm not convinced you are even aware of my position.

Paul then ends with your verse...

30What shall we say then? That Gentiles who did not follow after righteousness [who did not seek salvation by right relationship to God] have attained it by faith [a righteousness imputed by God, based on and produced by faith], 31Whereas Israel, though ever in pursuit of a law [for the securing] of righteousness (right standing with God), actually did not succeed in fulfilling the Law.(N)
32For what reason? Because [they pursued it] not through faith, relying [instead] on the merit of their works [they did not depend on faith but on what they could do]. They have stumbled over the Stumbling Stone.(O)
33As it is written, Behold I am laying in Zion a Stone that will make men stumble, a Rock that will make them fall; but he who believes in Him [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] shall not be put to shame nor be disappointed in his expectations.(P)

I notice you emboldened the phrase "Behold I am laying in Zion a Stone that will make men stumble, a Rock that will make them fall."

That stone is called the "Skandalon," a nickname I selected because of this verse. Do you even understand why I would do that? Do you know my position well enough to explain why I would think the "Skandalon" (the rock of offense) would be laid in Israel (Zion)? Think about it and let me know.

 

[Skandelon]

I hadn't seen this response when I replied to your last post. I'm glad you are at least willing to deal with the "flow of the text." Thank you...

This just shows what he has already stated in verses 6-7 of chapter 9 that...everybody who is a descendant of Jacob.

6However, it is not as though God's Word had failed [coming to nothing]. For it is not everybody who is a descendant of Jacob (Israel) who belongs to [the true] Israel. 7And they are not all the children of Abraham because they are by blood his descendants. No, [the promise was] Your descendants will be called and counted through the line of Isaac [though Abraham had an older son].(C)

Notice also verse 20 of chapter 10..."I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.

That is election of someone other than Israel...FOR(Romans9) God can do as he pleases.

I agree. (Have you noticed I say that a lot? I think that is because you don't know my position well enough to even recognize our points of contention. I agree that Paul is showing that the Jews are not the only ones who have been elected and I agree that God does has he pleases.

"I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."... Who is Paul talking about? The Gentiles. As apposed to the Nation he has held out his hands to for ever, as Paul says: 21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

So, the Jews are being hardened (with the exception of the Remnant of Israel who God has reserved to carry the message to the world...people like Paul, Peter etc). The message is going to the Gentiles and they are listening (Acts 28:28).

Lets read just a bit more...
7What then [shall we conclude]? Israel failed to obtain what it sought [God's favor by obedience to the Law]. Only the elect (those chosen few) obtained it, while the rest of them became callously indifferent (blinded, hardened, and made insensible to it).

Correct. Israel, the natural descendants of Abraham, failed to obtain what it sought by "obedience to the Law." Only those chosen few, the Remnant chosen out of Israel to bring the message of the cross to the world, obtained it. The rest of the Jews were hardened/blinded and "made insensible to it."

Now, keep reading and let's find out what happens to "the rest" who were blinded, okay?

8As it is written, God gave them a spirit (an attitude) of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, [that has continued] down to this very day.
9And David says, Let their table (their feasting, banqueting) become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a
10Let their eyes be darkened (dimmed) so that they cannot see, and make them bend their back [stooping beneath their burden] forever.

So, they (Jews who are being hardened):

1. have been given a spirit of stupor where they can't see or hear
2. have a table that has become a snare
3. have had their eyes darkened so they can't see

Jarthur, I want you to notice three things about these hardened individuals.

(1) They weren't born in this condition. They BECAME hardened and calloused over time and God judicially blinded them in that condition. In other words, this inability to hear, see and understand is not a condition from birth as your dogma suggests.

(2) This condition is unique to the Jews who were being hardened and not to all mankind. Just as Paul states, "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Notice the contrast between the Jews who are hardened and the Gentiles who are not?

(3) These hardened Jews cannot be the "non-elect reprobates" you suppose they are because look what Paul goes on to say in the very next verse about these hardened Jews.

11So I ask, Have they stumbled so as to fall [to their utter spiritual ruin, irretrievably]? By no means!

See? They are not certain to be condemned. They have not stumbled so as to certainly fall!!!!

What might happen? Paul tells us plainly:

14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. ...23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Who is Paul's "own people" who might be provoked to envy and saved, Jarthur? It is the hardened Jew that he has been talking about through this whole context. Who might be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief? The hardened Jew!

This passage again follows from 9....God can and does harden Jews.

Now note the next verse...

13But now I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I lay great stress on my ministry and magnify my office,

The very fact that you even think that addresses any point of disagreement proves you have yet to understand our views. Of course God can and does hardening the Jews, what do you think I've been saying? Please try to understand BEFORE you respond.

Not my words I posted...the Bible's.

No. They ALWAYS will. That is the heart of being spiritually dead. They will NEVER come to God....always always always reject him.

I acknowledged that Jarthur. They can and do reject God, something a "DEAD" man couldn't do in real life. You don't even see the double standard of your position. You argue on the one hand that a dead man in the analogy can't do anything. He can't see, hear, respond or ANYTHING, but when I point out what HE CAN do in your system (resist and reject) you fail to see how that contradicts the very claim you have made about a "dead man" in your analogy. If he is "dead" in a more "literal" sense as you argue then it only would stand to reason that even a respond of resistance and repulsion would be impossible. Thus, the best you can do is read your interpretation into to the text, just as you accuse me of doing.

John 8..
43Why do you misunderstand what I say? It is because you are unable to hear what I am saying. [You cannot bear to listen to My message; your ears are shut to My teaching.] 44You are of your father, the devil, and it is your will to practice the lusts and gratify the desires [which are characteristic] of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false.

When you read this passage you think those who are "children of the devil" are the non-elect reprobates, right? But aren't we all born as "children of the devil" who need to be saved?

And when Paul says, "You are unable to hear what I am saying." You think he is addressing the condition of their heart from birth because of being born "totally depraved," right? But isn't Paul's audience in this passage the Jewish leaders of the Law who are being hardened in their rebellion so that they cannot hear, see, understand and believe? As the passage above (Act 28) tells us, the Jews are being hardened, but the "Gentiles will listen." So, this inability of his audience to hear is a result of the temporary hardening of Israel, not a the natural condition of all mankind from birth. (John 12:39-41)

however........

47Whoever is of God listens to God. [Those who belong to God hear the words of God.] .............(((BUT)))).....This is the reason that you do not listen [to those words, to Me]: because you do not belong to God and are not of God or in harmony with Him.

Now do you believe? My guess is NOT.

Oh, Jarthur, please, please, please pay attention. Who is listening to God at this time in history? Who is learning from Christ? The Remnant of Israel.

The Gentiles have not been sent the gospel yet, that doesn't happen until Paul is sent and Peter has his dream, right? So, if the Remnant of Israel (people like the apostles) are the only ones being clearly shown the truth and have been reserved from the hardening process of Israel couldn't it be that Paul is addressing the condition of the hardened Jews as apposed to the rest? Just think about it. Understand it before you respond, PLEASE!

 

[Jarthur001]

Of course, did you read my post? This is called "diatribe." But what "reader" would have this objection? (An elect believer? A hardened Jew? An Arminian thinker?) That is the question I posed which seemed to fly right over your head. Calvinists presume it answers OUR (a non-Calvinists) objection and I showed you why that is not true, but you ran right past that argument to make obvious statements as if you are teaching me something I don't know or haven't addressed. If you are not going to even attempt to follow my arguments I really see no reason to continue this conversation. I am trying to be patient with you, but I have to know you are genuinely trying and I'm not convinced you are.

Good grief Skandelon, try to stay on track.
I didn't say you agree nor disagree. You asked something...I answered. If you wish to debate stay focused.

And I'm sure you are aware that even Calvinistic scholars understand that the "hate/love" language is about a divine choice of one over the other and not literal "hatred" as we think of hatred.

Case in point. We were not talking about the meaning of LOVE. You asked why would any object...I answered. I have shown the clear list of black and whites...love...hate.

A God who expresses his universal love for the world and commands his followers to love their enemies does not "hate" Esau in the sense that you seem to be arguing.

I quoted a verse...I have yet to say what I think it means on this thread. Again...stay focused.

Most Calvinistic scholars also at least acknowledge the national representation of these two brothers. And most non-Calvinistic scholars recognize and address the effect this national election plays on the individuals within those nations.

Again, you waste words on something you need not bring up

It's called Hermeneutics. Look it up.

Again why do you feel you know, and I don't. Another messgae from God?

You read your interpretation into the text based upon your Calvinistic dogma.

I go with the words...you want to change the words.

I, on the other hand, practice the number 1 rule in Hermeneutics, which is to look at the WHOLE context.

I rest my case. Please follow the rule.

You have yet to deal with these passages. Why? Because they are not in the same chapter?

If I didn't answer them, why did you reply to them in your next post?????

Well, since you weren't willing to even consider chapters 10 and 11 I thought you might need that reminder, so you're welcome.

:wavey:

You, the one not willing to address the chapters surrounding our passage, are telling me, "context is king?" Ironic.

good one..

You do know re-quoting a verse I have already provided an interpretation for is not an argument, don't you?

Do you know what you asked? Those verses gave you the answer.

Who does God harden?

18So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills.

Whomever.....
Jews? YES
Greeks? YES
Fat? yes
Skinnny? Yes
Tall...? Yes

Anyone from any of these groups and all other groups..ANYONE God wishes...

THAT IS WHAT THE VERSE SAYS.

Now...was this passage addressing the Jews? YES, it was the main point. But please notice if you would drop your dogma, that Jews are not the only one addressed in Romans 9.

If this is going to be a discussion you must actually address my arguments and stop just restating your position and quoting scriptures with certain words emboldened. That is fruitless. I already know what you believe. I used to teach it.

If you know why can't you follow?

All the while, Israel, with exception of the Remnant, are being hardened.

AGAIN>>>>>PLEASE NOTE. WRITE THIS DOWN

NOT JUST THE JEWS

 

[Skandelon]

Good grief Skandelon, try to stay on track.
I didn't say you agree nor disagree. You asked something...I answered. If you wish to debate stay focused.

Oh brother. Go back and read it again, please. I asked a rhetorical question that I then provided an answer for as a means to make an argument...one you didn't ever even address. I'll just skip ahead to something of substance, I'm not participating in nonsensical banter anymore...

Who does God harden?

18So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills.

Whomever.....
Jews? YES
Greeks? YES
Fat? yes
Skinnny? Yes
Tall...? Yes

Anyone from any of these groups and all other groups..ANYONE God wishes...

THAT IS WHAT THE VERSE SAYS.

And I AGREE!!! God can harden whoever he wills, just as he can save whoever he wills. We believe He wills to save whosoever believes in him, and you believe he wills to save whosoever he effectually causes to believe in Him. So what? That doesn't address our point of contention. Why? Because you don't understand our point of contention yet.

Who does God wish to harden, Jarthur?

Could it be the people who he has held out his hands to for ever? Could it be the Jews? Romans 10:21 answers that question for you, as does a dozen other verses in this context.

You think God wishes to hardened the "non-elect reprobates," but then explain to me how it can be that those being hardened might be provoked to envy and saved? Can the non-elect reprobates be saved, Jarthur?

Now...was this passage addressing the Jews? YES, it was the main point. But please notice if you would drop your dogma, that Jews are not the only one addressed in Romans 9.

AGAIN>>>>>PLEASE NOTE. WRITE THIS DOWN

NOT JUST THE JEWS

Never said that the Jews were the only ones being addressed in Romans 9. In fact, I have clearly explained that there are 3 groups of individual being addressed in Romans 9-11.

1. Hardened Israel: The natural descendants of Abraham who at this time in history are being blinded and "cut off from the tree" (sent a spirit of stupor) so as not to be able to hear, see and respond in faith to the clear gospel truth.

2. The Remnant of Israel: The natural descendants of Abraham who at this time in history are not being blinded or cut off, but instead have been chosen for the noble purpose of bringing the message of reconciliation to the world.

3. Gentiles: The non-Jews who are being grafted into the tree so that they can listen to the appeal of the message of reconciliation and respond in faith. They are not being hardened like Israel, but they will listen (Acts 28:28)


So, yes, individuals are included in these groups, both from Israel and not from Israel. Do you understand?

 

[Jarthur001]

I hadn't seen this response when I replied to your last post. I'm glad you are at least willing to deal with the "flow of the text." Thank you...

what?? No free coke and a "sorry" for jumping my case?
skip it...

I agree. (Have you noticed I say that a lot? I think that is because you don't know my position well enough to even recognize our points of contention. I agree that Paul is showing that the Jews are not the only ones who have been elected and I agree that God does has he pleases.

BUT...do you understand the overall point?

So, the Jews are being hardened

In this case...YES. But the point is not just the Jews. The Jews were used as an argument, for this was WHO Paul was addressing. But Paul the Bible in this passage and others makes it CLEAR election is from all people groups, and the unbeliever as well

Jarthur, I want you to notice three things about these hardened individuals.

(1) They weren't born in this condition. They BECAME hardened and calloused over time and God judicially blinded them in that condition. In other words, this inability to hear, see and understand is not a condition from birth as your dogma suggests.

Some of this I agree with. But how is it that you think you know my "dogma" on hardening of the heart, when I have yet to state it??? Another "word" from God Skandelon?

This is yet another misunderstanding of Calvinism. And you use to teach it??? haha....I'm beginning to see why you can't know.

DT does not mean the heart can't become harden. DT means they have no MEANS...are not ABLE to come to God. They can go away from God, fall into the deepest parts of sin. They can and do reject God. (I KNOW YOU BELIEVE THIS).

(2) This condition is unique to the Jews who were being hardened and not to all mankind. Just as Paul states, "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Notice the contrast between the Jews who are hardened and the Gentiles who are not?

Why do you think Pharaoh is a Jew?

(3) These hardened Jews cannot be the "non-elect reprobates" you suppose they are because look what Paul goes on to say in the very next verse about these hardened Jews.

When did I say this?

11So I ask, Have they stumbled so as to fall [to their utter spiritual ruin, irretrievably]? By no means!

1st, no one that I knows limits this passage to the Jews at the time of the writing.

11So I ask, Have they stumbled so as to fall [to their utter spiritual ruin, irretrievably]? By no means! But through their false step and transgression salvation [has come] to the Gentiles, so as to arouse Israel [to see and feel what they forfeited] and so to make them jealous. 12Now if their stumbling (their lapse, their transgression) has so enriched the world [at large], and if [Israel's] failure means such riches for the Gentiles, think what an enrichment and greater advantage will follow their full reinstatement!


Most would say that this again is showing that the JEWS...thinking they were elect because of their nation, is shown that they too can be blind. The blinding of the Gentiles is not addressed here, because the JEWS always felt that the Gentiles were blind. Paul show God can blind both.

See?

:laugh:

They are not certain to be condemned. They have not stumbled so as to certainly fall!!!!

Who said this?

Who is Paul's "own people" who might be provoked to envy and saved, Jarthur? It is the hardened Jew that he has been talking about through this whole context. Who might be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief? The hardened Jew!

I changed my mind. I want that coke.

The very fact that you even think that addresses any point of disagreement proves you have yet to understand our views. Of course God can and does hardening the Jews, what do you think I've been saying?

Please try to understand BEFORE you respond.

Again..please stay on track. I didn't say you disagreed nor did I say you agreed. You asked my views. I gave them.

Now I feel i have 3 cokes coming my way.

I acknowledged that Jarthur. They can and do reject God, something a "DEAD" man couldn't do in real life. You don't even see the double standard of your position.

You don't understand DT...do you?

You argue on the one hand that a dead man in the analogy can't do anything.

...aaaaw when it comes to coming to God.

He can't see, hear, respond or ANYTHING, but when I point out what HE CAN do in your system (resist and reject) you fail to see how that contradicts the very claim you have made about a "dead man" in your analogy.

You are a hoot. Rejecting is not coming to God. Dead means they have no way ...they are not able to come to God. They CAN reject him. Again, that is PART of DT. get it? Please write it down.

If he is "dead" in a more "literal" sense as you argue then it only would stand to reason that even a respond of resistance and repulsion would be impossible. Thus, the best you can do is read your interpretation into to the text, just as you accuse me of doing.

4 cokes

When you read this passage you think those who are "children of the devil" are the non-elect reprobates, right? But aren't we all born as "children of the devil" who need to be saved?

yes

And when Paul says, "You are unable to hear what I am saying." You think he is addressing the condition of their heart from birth because of being born "totally depraved," right?

Paul didn't say this. John 8, Paul was still a non-believer.

But yes...it is because they at born DT.

But isn't Paul's audience in this passage the Jewish leaders of the Law who are being hardened in their rebellion so that they cannot hear, see, understand and believe?

Well...It is Jesus....but you make a good point. Yes

As the passage above (Act 28) tells us, the Jews are being hardened, but the "Gentiles will listen."

Acts 28 is years after John 8. You seem to be a dispy. I may be wrong, but if you are, this throws a huge problem in the arena for you.

If you are not...It still don't matter, if you understand DT.

So, this inability of his audience to hear is a result of the temporary hardening of Israel, not a the natural condition of all mankind from birth. (John 12:39-41)

six pack

Oh, Jarthur, please, please, please pay attention. Who is listening to God at this time in history? Who is learning from Christ? The Remnant of Israel.

Again...why do you think I don't read? message from God? I did read clarke...i don't read you...

but this is a hoot. You just now noticed the time frame, but you forgot to change your post above. Well...I already typed what I said...so it remains.

The Gentiles have not been sent the gospel yet, that doesn't happen until Paul is sent and Peter has his dream, right? So, if the Remnant of Israel (people like the apostles) are the only ones being clearly shown the truth and have been reserved from the hardening process of Israel couldn't it be that Paul is addressing the condition of the hardened Jews as apposed to the rest? Just think about it. Understand it before you respond, PLEASE!

Understand? Your so deep....maybe there is no hope for me.


But you see, the whole argument you gave before you knew this was not paul....just failed.

Do I understand or what???

 

[Jarthur001]

before we go on.....

If you recall we started in Romans 9. Pharaoh is a Jew?

 

[Skandelon]

before we go on.....

If you recall we started in Romans 9. Pharaoh is a Jew?

Of course not, but he is an example of one, like the Israelites of Paul's day, who was hardened in their rebellion.

Pharaoh was blinded from the truth of the plagues so as to accomplish the first passover, in the same way that Israel was blinded from the truth of Christ (the Skandalon) so as to accomplish the true PASSOVER. Both acts of judicial hardening were employed by God to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose. The first being the redemption of Israel from slavery to Egypt, the second being the redemption of the world from slavery to sin. It's all quite prophetic and beautiful.

 

[olegig]

I have been enjoying this exchange and would like to interject just a token here.....

Before God hardened the heart of Pharaoh in Ex 7:3, God foreknew the heart of Pharaoh as shown by Ex 3:19 & 5:1,2.

 

[Skandelon]

In this case...YES. But the point is not just the Jews. The Jews were used as an argument, for this was WHO Paul was addressing. But Paul the Bible in this passage and others makes it CLEAR election is from all people groups, and the unbeliever as well

Oh, good, then it should be real easy to point to the others scriptures that teach that ALL mankind (not just Israel at this time) are born in the hardened condition where they are unable to see, hear, understand and repent when confronted by the gospel of reconciliation. I'll wait to get that passage from you.

Some of this I agree with. But how is it that you think you know my "dogma" on hardening of the heart, when I have yet to state it??? Another "word" from God Skandelon?

This is yet another misunderstanding of Calvinism. And you use to teach it??? haha....I'm beginning to see why you can't know.

What specifically have I misrepresented about Calvinism Jarthur? If you are going to make an accusation be willing to support it with a specific quote and an argument as to how I have misrepresented the Calvinistic views. How about you actually tell us what you do agree with and what you don't agree with and explain why; then maybe we can have a fruitful discussion that doesn't turn into weak ad hominem attacks.

DT does not mean the heart can't become harden. DT means they have no MEANS...are not ABLE to come to God.

I understand that, which is why I quoted to you several passages that indicate what men could do "otherwise." (had they not become hardened) Remember this:

Acts 28:24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

I said, "These hardened Jews cannot be the "non-elect reprobates" you suppose they are because look what Paul goes on to say in the very next verse about these hardened Jews."

You asked: "When did I say this? "

So, you don't believe that those referred to as being "hardened" in Romans 9 are "non-elect reprobates?" Please expound.

1st, no one that I knows limits this passage to the Jews at the time of the writing.

Neither do I. God can hardened anyone at anytime he chooses, including today. But we are talking about what God is doing at that time in history and for what reason he is doing it. Paul explains that the hardening/blinding of Israel is temporary and unique to Israel (Rm 11:25; Acts 28:28; John 12:39-41 etc).

Why then would you take those passages which describe a unique and temporary condition of Israel (unable to see, hear, understand and repent) as proof texts to support the concept that all men are born in this condition due to the Fall? Where is the proof? Draw the lines to connect these two dots.

Most would say that this again is showing that the JEWS...thinking they were elect because of their nation, is shown that they too can be blind. The blinding of the Gentiles is not addressed here, because the JEWS always felt that the Gentiles were blind. Paul show God can blind both.

But the Gentiles weren't being "blinded" by God as were the Jews at this time. As Paul states, "they will listen." (Acts 28:28)

Yes, Gentiles, as a people, where "blind" (better stated, "unaware") to God's special revelations because they didn't receive them. Those were sent to Israel. The prophets when to Israel, the scripture went to Israel, the commandments when to Israel etc. But, for the most part, Israel rejected these revelations of God and thus GREW or BECAME hardened to them...the Gentiles had not...they were just ignorant of them.

Now, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is taking the special revelation of God to them and they are listening. They are believing. They are NOT being blinded from hearing, seeing and understanding the gospel. The Jews are!

I said: "They are not certain to be condemned. They have not stumbled so as to certainly fall!!!!"

You replied: Who said this?

Anyone who thinks that those being hardened in Romans 9-11 are the "non-elect" reprobates. If you don't think that, then please explain what it is you do think.

I changed my mind. I want that coke.
Now I feel i have 3 cokes coming my way.
You are a hoot.
4 cokes
six pack
but this is a hoot.

Ok, that ends our discussion until you actually deal with my arguments. Your immature banter only reveals your lack of understanding the historical points of contention between our two perspectives. You clearly are more interested in one liners, quibbling and avoiding arguments with which you have no understanding. From this point forward I will only respond to serious arguments from you, the rest will be ignored.

 

[Jarthur001]

A few more things before I address your post....

You believe Romans 9 is telling of the harden of the Jews and the Jews only. Am I right? If not please share.

...and you seem to be dividing into time frames like ...saying in the past God harden the non-Jews....but in Romans 9 he is harden the Jews.

If this is your idea.. When did this start? "Church age?"

Now...hang in there. I have another question after you answer this.

 

[Jarthur001]

Ok, that ends our discussion until you actually deal with my arguments. Your immature banter only reveals your lack of understanding the historical points of contention between our two perspectives. You clearly are more interested in one liners, quibbling and avoiding arguments with which you have no understanding. From this point forward I will only respond to serious arguments from you, the rest will be ignored.

Frankly I could care less. You misquoted me more than once, never once offered a "I'm sorry".....or I mislead..I was simply joking it off rather than calling you out AGAIN.

Like just one thing. Please state my views on TD.

Please don't run on and on....quoting verse for TD....against TD. Just one line.

After you do this, I will show where you misquote my views 3-4 times. I tell you WRONG....still you go on and do it again.

So now I joke...cause you are a hoot they way you rattle off a bunch of words, when you have not taking the time to ask me if I believe what you say I do.

 

[Skandelon]

A few more things before I address your post....

You believe Romans 9 is telling of the harden of the Jews and the Jews only. Am I right? If not please share.

No, as I stated previously:

Never said that the Jews were the only ones being addressed in Romans 9. In fact, I have clearly explained that there are 3 groups of individual being addressed in Romans 9-11.

1. Hardened Israel: The natural descendants of Abraham who at this time in history are being blinded and "cut off from the tree" (sent a spirit of stupor) so as not to be able to hear, see and respond in faith to the clear gospel truth.

2. The Remnant of Israel: The natural descendants of Abraham who at this time in history are not being blinded or cut off, but instead have been chosen for the noble purpose of bringing the message of reconciliation to the world.

3. Gentiles: The non-Jews who are being grafted into the tree so that they can listen to the appeal of the message of reconciliation and respond in faith. They are not being hardened like Israel, but they will listen (Acts 28:28)

...and you seem to be dividing into time frames like ...saying in the past God harden the non-Jews....but in Romans 9 he is harden the Jews.

Not exactly. Judicial hardening is God's active work to blind someone from the truth. The Jews are being blinded from the gospel so that they will not believe it. Why? If the Jews all believed in Christ's message they wouldn't have killed him. And, as Paul explains, God is blinding the Jews so as to make room for the Gentiles. What does that mean? I think it means that the Jews are a stubborn people who are bigoted against the Gentiles and would never allow them full entrance into the church. As we see from the Judizers of Paul's day, they are very difficult to convince. So, God is blinding the Jews temporarily so as to allow the fulness of Gentiles to come into the church...to establish themselves. In doing so, this will provoke the Jews to envy so that some might see the life changing results of the Gentiles who were once very sinful and they too might reconsider the gospel and come to faith.

The Gentiles can't be hardened to a message they have never heard. Hardening is a process by which someone is revealed a truth over and over again. The message, at this time in history, is just now being sent to the Gentile people. "They will listen." The Jews will not because they are hardened to it.

Now...hang in there. I have another question after you answer this.

That sounds fine. I appreciate your apparent desire to understand my position before critiquing it. That is refreshing.

 

[Jarthur001]

No, as I stated previously:

Never said that the Jews were the only ones being addressed in Romans 9. In fact, I have clearly explained that there are 3 groups of individual being addressed in Romans 9-11.

Skandelon...I was not asking about others. let me be as clear as I can. I know you have 3 groups...I read those before.

I'm asking...cause i want to be clear here.

Are the JEWS the only ones being hardened in Romans 9?


next...and you may have over looked this.

When did God begin to Harden the Jews...and stop hardening the non-Jews?

 

[Skandelon]

Awww, just when I thought you had turned over a new leaf...

Frankly I could care less. You misquoted me more than once, never once offered a "I'm sorry".....or I mislead..I was simply joking it off rather than calling you out AGAIN.

Like just one thing. Please state my views on TD.

Please don't run on and on....quoting verse for TD....against TD. Just one line.

Actually, if you could care less, then that means you care some. I think you meant to say, "I couldn't care less."

Could you provide a specific "misquote." Yes, I have assumed you hold to the basic tenets of Calvinism at times, but you have yet to show me where I've deferred from your specific beliefs. Please feel free to correct me where I am mistaken.

Total Depravity is the Calvinist doctrine that teaches everyone is born in a state of corruption (as a result of original sin) to such a degree that apart from a prior work of regeneration no man can willingly turn from his sin and have faith in the gospel message of reconciliation.

After you do this, I will show where you misquote my views 3-4 times. I tell you WRONG....still you go on and do it again.

I look forward to that. Thanks

 

[Jarthur001]

Awww, just when I thought you had turned over a new leaf...



Actually, if you could care less, then that means you care some. I think you meant to say, "I couldn't care less."

Could you provide a specific "misquote." Yes, I have assumed you hold to the basic tenets of Calvinism at times, but you have yet to show me where I've deferred from your specific beliefs. Please feel free to correct me where I am mistaken.

Total Depravity is the Calvinist doctrine that teaches everyone is born in a state of corruption (as a result of original sin) to such a degree that apart from a prior work of regeneration no man can willingly turn from his sin and have faith in the gospel message of reconciliation.



I look forward to that. Thanks

WRONG

I have said more than one time....

DT does not mean the heart can't become harden. DT means they have no MEANS...are not ABLE to come to God. They can go away from God, fall into the deepest parts of sin. They can and do reject God.

You see what you keeo doing????? how many times have i said that????

And I say it that way for good reason. But still, you try to use your OWN meaning to trap me. How many times?

now do you see why i joke?????????

ok....just slow down...

show me some repect.

read

and I will you..

deal?