Answering the major objection against Calvinism

There are many quotes I'm tempted to rebut, however it appears this seems to be the one you (and Nick) have really camped out on, so I'll spend my limited time here...

You also wrote: "Christ did hide some aspect of his ministry, but these are not the things which are associated with hardening"

I think we may be talking past each other just a little bit here and you are not hearing me. When I was a Calvinist I believed (as I think you do now) that all men were born in a condition where they are "ever seeing but not perceiving," right? This is what the doctrine of Totally Depravity taught. Men are born totally unable to believe the gospel...they are blind, deaf, and spiritually dead. I believed, as you do, that the gospel (apart from prior regeneration) is like water off a duck back...it goes in one ear and out the other...it can have absolutely NO positive effect upon a totally dead and depraved man. Am I right so far?

Now, however, I don't believe this to be the case. Don't get me wrong, I do still believe the condition described above is a real condition, but it is not a natural (from birth) condition of man. It is condition of a hardened man. One who has clearly seen and clearly heard and clearly perceived for a long time but who has also continually refused to accept the truth (example: the pagans described in Romans 1 who are "without excuse" because they did clearly see and understand the divine nature of God but refused to acknowledge him as such).

Hardened men have "grown calloused" over time, but they were not born that way. This is why scripture warns that we should not allow our hearts to grow hard.

You and I both agree that just because the truth can be clearly seen doesn't mean that it can be clearly perceived. You just believe that to be true of all mankind from birth, I do not.

So, of course Pharaoh eyes had seen all that the Lord did in Egypt, as Nick so kindly pointed out, but as the verse goes on to say he did not have eyes to really see it. In other words, he was "ever seeing but not perceiving," right? Why, you ask?

Was it because it was just born an idiot who couldn't see something so obvious as those plagues? Or could it be that the truth was being hidden/obscured from him so that he would continue in unbelief? The word "blinded" is often used synomously with hardening....which is why I refer it the truth as being "hidden." I was never trying to say the truth was not being revealed, quite the opposite. The truth is always being revealed, but it just isn't understood/perceived by those who have been hardened.

As I have continually shown, self hardening is a process by which otherwise perceptive men become blinded to clearly to revealed truth. When someone is being judicially hardened the truth is being hidden or obsured so that it is not understood, seen, or heard lest it be accepted. God does this to seal men in their already rebellous state. To the unhardened people (like the Gentiles of Christ's day) it is perfectly perceivable, but to one who has grown calloused (like the Jews of Christ's day) it is not.

(I understand that my cookie jar analogy did not perfectly capture the aspect of hiding something that is clearly perceivable, but that wasn't the point I was attempting to make with that particular analogy. I was simply attempting to show that when truth is not revealed [in a way that it IS percieved] that a person [like my cookie hunting daughter] will continue in their plot to steal. Likewise, Pharoah, who we both agree was seeing but not perceiving the truth, continued in his unbelief. Had he not been judicially blinded, he might have seen the truth after just a plague or two and let the Israelites go prior to God's design. God wanted to show is power so he hid the truth from Pharoah to keep him in unbelief and rebellion. In doing so God brought about the passover...a foreshadowing of what was to come as he also hardened Israel to bring about the true Passover of the Lamb.)

Now, back to your original question quoted above: "The natural reading of this passage would tend to imply that not having an mind to understand, eyes that see or ears that hear is the natural state of man. Would you agree"

Hopefully my explaination above helps you to see why I would not agree with this finding. The natural reading of the text explicitly shows that hardening is a PROCESS by which men GROW or BECOME calloused/blinded/hardened over a period of time as they continually rebell. The act of judicial hardening (as seen in the case of Pharaoh) is an active and deliberate action taken by God on one particular individual or group for a period of time and for a greater redemptive purpose. I see nothing in scripture supporting the notion that all men are born in this hardened/blinded condition.

Nothing reveals this more clearly than the passage we looked at earlier. Let's read it again and please comment on it this time if you would...

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Acts 28:26 "'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!"[/FONT]

Paul is clearly address Israel as being men who have "become calloused." And the prophecy clearly indicates what might have been had they not grown calloused. And it goes even further to illustate the differences between the hardened nation of Israel and Gentiles.

Now, please explain to me DW, if all men where born totally deaf, totally blind and totally hardened as your system insists then (1) how did these men "become/grow" deaf, blind and hardened; (2) why does it claim that they are ones closing their eyes as apposed to them being born closed; (3) why does it indicate what Israel might have done otherwise (if they had not grown hardened); and (4) why does it set the Gentiles a part as ones who will listen...afterall aren't we all just as equally blind, deaf and dumb in your system?

Thanks

 

I think the point being made is that if anyone attempts to call faith a work (whether irresistably motivated by God or not) then we all have to admit that we are saved through a work. Afterall, we all agree we are "saved by grace, through faith." Are we saved by grace through works? If you label faith as just another "work," then yes, we are, regardless of the source or effectuality of that work.

Additionally, I would have to inquire as to how one defines "receiving glory." Is commending or honoring the great cloud of faithful witnesses who have gone before us a way of giving glory to men? Clearly scripture's authors did not hesitate to praise the faith of our forefathers by which they were said to find God's favor (i.e. Heb. 11). Paul did not shrink back is saying that "Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness." Jesus did not rebuke himself or his father for not giving men more faith, instead he rebuked men for their little faith. God is not said to create or make men to faithfully worship him, but instead He seeks those who do so.

Clearly, there is a basis on which reward and punishment is founded and what is a "reward" if it's not some measure of what some might label "glory?" The scripture leaves room for merit and reward...so should we.

 

:BangHead:

Why do I bother?


J.D. the point is that we all believe faith merits salvation regardless of the irresistability of the source by which that faith comes.

Arminianism is a far cry from Pelagianism. Pelagianism denied the doctrine of original sin among other very foundational doctrines, whereas Arminianism did not. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate us lumping Calvinists all in with the anti-evangelistic Hyper-Calvinists or even the baby baptizing Augustinians, would you?

 

There is also the point of sola fide...but that is a rabbit I really don't want to chase at this time or in this thread...

 

We have no disagreement on that point. The problem only exists when one attempts to equate men's contra-casual free choice of faith in Christ with the merits of the law...