Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction!

No that is not true Scott. It's a timing issue. The gospel was brought to the Jews first then to the Gentiles. I'm not trying to argue that their is a different means to their salvation or that Christ didn't provide salvation for them all, just that he deals with them differently due to the fact that Israel is hardened for the purpose if ingrafting the Gentiles.

"The gospel is the power of God unto Salvation for everyone who believes, first for the Jews then for the Gentiles."

Scott, what you are failing to see is that the "mystery" of the gospel that is referred to numerous times throughout the scripture is the fact that God was now allowing Gentiles entrance into the Kingdom. This was a major issue that everyone and their dog was talking about. This was the center of their debates, struggles and their joy. We take it for granted now that Salvation is for both Jews and Gentiles, but to them it would have been like in modern day a doctor announcing that men can now birth babies, it was unheard of and caused all kinds of turmoil and excitement in the first century.

So, for Christ to speak to the Jews in this manner would not have been assumed to be applicable to all believers. The Jews were a unique group of people who were in the process of being hardened. How can that fact not affect how we understand Jesus' words to them in John 6?

Scott, the Remnant are Jews who were not hardened as seen very clearly in Romans 11. Jesus is speaking to Jews in this text. How does those facts not imply that the Remnant are those he is speaking about in this text?

"Christ died for all." How do Calvinists interpret that phrase? They say, "This phrase has the audience in focus and would mean "all of you," referring to the elect.

The same principle is being applied here. "No one" could simply mean, "No one of you" can come to me. As Jesus is addressing Israel some of which are hardened, some of which are not. And on top of that he has only chosen 12 to learn directly from him so as to receive Apostolic Authority. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that most of his crowd wasn't enabled to come to him either because they were hardened or because they were not selected to be one of his apostles. That is very reasonable, and quite probable if you are honest with this text.

Scott, this is simple hermeneutics. Who is his audience and what is the historical context? The text should not have the burden of having to say, "No one of you Jews," any reasonable reader of the text can see that he is speaking to Jews and that when he says, "no one" that he may very well be referring to them, especially in light of the historical context in which these words were being spoken. Jews were being hardened for the ingrafting process and Jesus was divinely appointing and training apostles to usher in the church age.

Again, I am not being unreasonable in my interpretation, I think you have just been so use to reading the text without even considering who and what the author might be referring to that you can't bear someone telling you that you may have had it wrong all these years. (I know because I've been there)

I think if you will view the text with an open mind and with sincere objectivity you will see that my interpretation is very likely correct.

The fact that you have drawn these ludicous conclusions from what I have stated proves that you either don't understand my view, or you don't know how to deal with my actual arguments so you falsely attribute absurd conclusions that have nothing to with my claims in order to dismiss them. I don't believe there are different "means" of Salvation in the way you assert nor do I believe that there is more than one resurrection of the saints.

Were you saved in the same manner as Paul or any of the apostles were saved? Of course not. They were unique and divinely called and gifted to carry the message of Christ's infalliable word. To take everything that was said to them and apply to us in the same manner is poor hemeneutics and poor theology.

Scott, you are just so use to your method of interpreting the text you wouldn't know good hermeneutics if they bit you on the nose. Knowing context, audience and issues of the text is not "twisting and distorting," but ignoring these facts does lead to false conclusions.

Again, the fact that you point out these issue proves you don't understand my point. I realize that terminology and the effects of salvation are shared with all believers, present and future. My point is the fact that when the terminology is being used in this context that at times Christ may be speaking about a unique situation.

Let me give you an example. When Jesus says to his apostles, "You will do signs and wonders even greater than these." Did he mean that all future believers would be able to do miraclous signs? I don't think so, do you?

This is my point. We must understand the text in context. The context of Israel's hardening is significant when interpreting Christ's words concerning man's ability or lack thereof, especially when his audience is Israel.

So you say. Scott, honestly I was surprised that you admitted that even "some" of the passages are unique to Israel seeing how unobjective you are dealing with these texts in order to support your viewpoint. Your bias, to win this argument, to prove Calvinism and to save face is keeping you from objectively reading these texts in light of their intended context.

Once again, the fact that you even make this comment, as if I don't agree with it, proves either your complete lack of understanding or your creation of a straw man for you to destroy while the real issues go unaddressed. Do you actually think I don't believe that Christ is God's salvation to all people? Get real. Let's deal with the issues Scott.

 

So, Bill, if anyone does not agree with your interpretation he has a closed mind and reads without sincere objectivity? Not!

 

No, Ken just those who take my words and draw absurd conclusions thus avoiding the real arguments and failing to deal with the actual issues. Thanks for allowing me to clarify that.

 

If you say that Jews are elected to salvation or else hardened to the gospel by God while the Gentiles are all free to believe or not believe then you are very much arguing that they have a different means of salvation.

Please cite your scripture.

Assumed by who? Who determines the full intent of a message, the listener or the speaker? Especially when that speaker happens to be God incarnate.

Because of a very small word that non-calvinists usually love... "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." Do you not think that Jesus knew that this "all" would include the redeemed Gentiles?

There is nothing in Romans 11 that limits election to the Jews. (And you lecture me about exegesis?)

BTW, remnant is mentioned only twice in the NT. Romans 9 and 11. In both cases, God's sovereignty and will are being exalted. In neither place is election limited to the Jews.

Maybe... if Jesus had only died for those present when He spoke those words.

 

If you say that Jews are elected to salvation or else hardened to the gospel by God while the Gentiles are all free to believe or not believe then you are very much arguing that they have a different means of salvation.

No, I'm saying that the Remnant were chosen not to recieve the hardening as were the rest of the Jews. All of the Jews deserved to be hardened but some were chosen, for whatever reason, to not receive this hardening. They still hear the gospel and respond in faith like the rest. (except the apostles they were appointed to carry the gospel, so they were a little different breed.)

Please cite your scripture.

Ephesians 2:11-3:11 for example

Assumed by who? Who determines the full intent of a message, the listener or the speaker? Especially when that speaker happens to be God incarnate.

I was referring to the original audience, but I would also include Christ. I don't believe Christ had all believers in focus here, but those who were given to come to him while he was in the flesh. Look back at John 17:1-3 and I think you can see that Jesus is talking about who God has given Him while in the flesh, meaning while he was the incarnate Word on this earth.

Scott, you must admit that it wasn't given to everyone to be an apostle of Christ. Not everyone could just join up with Jesus in the flesh, this was a reserved position of divinely inspired men--apostles, taught directly by the Son.

Because of a very small word that non-calvinists usually love... "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." Do you not think that Jesus knew that this "all" would include the redeemed Gentiles?

The word "all" as Calvinist also love to point out must take into consideration it's intended audience. "All of you" is a very possible rendering of this text. Again, many Arminians don't hold to this view, it doesn't determine the validity of the doctrine, its just my view of this text. It's what I really think Christ was referring to when he said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me." I think he was meaning, "All of you that the Father has given to walk and learn from me in the flesh will come to me." In the very next phrase He does say, "I've come down from heaven..." showing that He is refering to his work while in the flesh, and not necessarily his work in the Spirit after His assention.

And a verse later he does broaden his scope saying, "For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

There is nothing in Romans 11 that limits election to the Jews. (And you lecture me about exegesis?)

I'm not limiting election to the Jews. I'm just saying that in this text the Jews are being referred to. You can tell from my comments concerning the "mystery" that God also chose to reveal his message to the Gentiles as well. I believe election has more to do with God's chose to reveal himself to a group of people. He elected to reveal himself through the nation of Israel. He elected to reveal the gospel to the Gentiles. I don't see that to mean God chose certain individuals in those nations to save and others to passover. The only time the Bible mentions individuals being "chosen" is in reference to someone being chosen for a specific divine purpose such as a prophet or an apostle.

BTW, remnant is mentioned only twice in the NT. Romans 9 and 11. In both cases, God's sovereignty and will are being exalted. In neither place is election limited to the Jews.

As I stated, election isn't limited to Jews. God chose to reveal himself to the Gentiles too. Yes, God sovereignly chose who would not recieve the hardening as He was fulfilling the divine purpose of bringing redemption to the world.

 

The problem still remains. You just changed it around by making God guilty for the condemnation of the hardened Jews while still maintaining that those that were saved did so by their own will. Under your construction, God is now responsible for at least some people not choosing Him but that all of the redeemed have added the act of good will to Christ's sacrifice in order to be saved.

I am sorry Bill. I simply do not believe that what you posted is biblical in any way. You will probably be tempted to accuse me of distorting what you believe but before you do so please re-read what you wrote. You said that God hardened some Jews thus ensuring their condemnation but that He left a remnant alone so that they could believe by the same means as Gentiles- which to you means they were free to hear and choose or refuse the Gospel.

 

That is not what Ephesians 1 says. Paul says "we" not "I". He is obviously referring to those that are adopted as sons.

Arminians accuse Calvinists of believing in a cruel God that by a direct act of divine will chooses hell for some people. Yet, how is what you state above not embracing that very concept?

 

Ok, Scott let me try again. Yes, God hardened all of Israel except the remnant. You say that makes me have the same "problems" as Calvinists. No, that is not true, let me explain why. Calvinists believe that people are. in a sense, born natually hardened because of the fall, people have no choice in the matter with Calvinism.

I'm teaching that people are not born hardened but that one is not hardened until they have rejected God's ways and "God is patient with them not wanting anyone to perish," but if they continue in their rebellion God could "hardened" them in that disobedience in order to accomplish a specific purpose through them (ie Pharoah or Hardened Israel).

So, there is a big difference between what I am teaching and what Calvinism teaches, does that make more sense?

 

Scott, go back and look again at Eph. 1. Notice that in verses 3-12 Paul uses the pronouns "us" and "we" and in verse 11 he refers to "us who were the first to trust in Christ." (Apostles) Then look at verse 13 he switches pronouns and changes referants by saying: In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation--in Him when you believed--were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

There is an obvious distinction between the "us/we" in verses 3-12 and the "also you" in the following verses. Now, I'm not saying that everything Paul says in reference to the Apostles is only applicable to them, just that I believe Paul is speaking uniquly about "those who first trusted in Christ" who were not only apart of the Remnant but the uniquely chosen apostles. The key principle to remember is this: What ever is true of the Saints is also true of the Apostles, but what ever is true of the Apostles may or may not be true of all the saints. Let me know if I need to expound some more on this or if you can see where I'm coming from when you look at the text.

Hopefully, my explaination on the previous post covers this question, but let me state it one more time. Hardening is different from total depravity in that man makes their bed and God forces them to lie in it (so to speak). Plus, the hardening is a temporary condition as seen in Rom. 11. It is clear to see in Romans 11 that those who are being hardened will be provoked to envy and this may "save some." How could "envy" lead someone to salvation if man's will is not involved? If "the elect" of the Calvinistic system are being "effectually called" as you claim why would God employ envy as an external motivator to save them? Envy is used to motivate people "to keep up with the Jones" and obviously when the time is right God uses it to motivate hardened Israel to be saved. This teaching in no way affords the complaints of the Calvinistic system.

 

That is a mischaracterization IMO. The Bible does not say that people are born hardened. It says they are born with an inherited sin nature and are spiritually dead.

Man will act according to his nature and by his own choice/will become hardened. Man naturally chooses himself. God doesn't have to harden him for that to be true.

Calvinism does not teach that God preordains people to hell by His will. It teaches that He allows some to continue in their own rebellious will.

I have no problem following your arguments. They are perfectly understandable as are their implications. The problem is that they conflict with scripture and are not logically consistent to boot.

For instance in your statement above, you reverse field and now say that God waited for Israel and Pharoah to become hardened. This is inconsistent with what you have been arguing all along and it is scripturally untrue. As you have pointed out, God hardened the Jews and Romans 9 plus several other passages says that God hardened Pharoah.

In fact, I think what you wrote above is consistent with what I said the hardening meant several posts ago to which you objected.

 

Bill, You are forced by your presuppositions to reach outside of the text and context to draw this conclusion. The evidence for who the "we" is in vss. 3-5 comes internally: "us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself... by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." You have hinged everything on vs. 11 commanding the context. It cannot due to vs. 10 which consolidates the previous thoughts to a gathering of all things (obviously elect things as all other things are fitted to destruction) in Christ.

I don't disagree but that does not yield the freedom to dispense with election by saying it was only for the Apostles or some indefinite remnant of Jews. Your entire premise hangs on a simple case of Paul reassuring the Jews in Rome that God would save some of them to. The word is used twice in the whole of the NT yet you would apply it all over the place in order to manage context.

Sincerely Bill, I do understand what you are saying. I simply believe that you are allowing certain presuppositions reliant on very shaky scriptural foundations to guide your interpretations.

 

Ok, fine don't use the word "hardened," but its just semantics. It means they can't hear, see or understand, how is that different that "total depravity" as taught by Calvinists?

I agree that the bible says we are born spiritually dead and with a sin nature, its the Calvinist that try and make that mean "total inability" which is practically the same as "hardening". Having a "sin nature" or being "spiritually dead" in no way necessitates that the power of the HS through the gospel can't awaken one who hears through faith.

The problem with Calvinism is it defines the effects of the Fall on mankind in the same way the scripture defines the effects of hardening on mankind.

If this is not true, please tell me how the effects of the Fall (Total Depravity) are different than the effects of hardening as taught in scripture.

Scott, in you view, what exactly is hardening and what is its purpose? I think that will help clarify our conversation.

That is not what scripture clearly teaches in Acts 28:26-28. It tells us the effects of God hardening and then say, "otherwise they might see...hear...and understand and be converted." If not for the hardening they could do all these things.

Also, look at John 12:37-41: The same princple is seen here. If they weren't hardened they could have believed.

Romans 10 clearly shows that it is God who does the hardening. "He gave them a spirit of stupor" and it tells us in chapter 11 that he hardened them temporarily for the ingrafting of the Gentiles. Yes, men sin but only God can harden them if He so chooses. IMO, God wouldn't harden someone unless their was a specific purpose in doing so (I base this opinion on the fact that all the cases of hardening have a specific purpose)

Calvinism does not teach that God preordains people to hell by His will. It teaches that He allows some to continue in their own rebellious will.

Please be specific, what conflicts with scripture, and what is not logical. Again, please be specific. (you give me one instance below and I will address that, but if there is anything else please show me)

Scott, you statement here proves that you're not understanding me.

When was I inconsistant? I've always maintained that hardening was the process in which a man who was in continual rebellion was hardened in that rebellion. I've certainly not said that they were born hardened. Pharoah was unwilling to let His people go, God hardened him in that decision to accomplish a purpose. Israel (most of them) were unwilling to follow God's ways because of their unbelief, God hardened them in their decision to accomplish a purpose.

Yes, God allowed them to make their own choices and he patiently waits and calls them to change their ways but if they don't He can harden them, they don't harden themselves in this instance as you seem to assert.

This has always been my postion, if I have communicated something different please point out where and I will readily admit it if I've contradicted myself. Otherwise, you need to support your claim that my arguments are not biblically based and illogical. I be waiting for your support for that claim.

I objected because you were arguing that hardening was something they alone did to themselves and that everyone was that way. The bible specifally tells us that God is the one who hardens the Israelites and in opposition to that Paul tells us that the Gentiles will listen. The Gentiles are not hardened because God hasn't been holding out his hands to them for generations as he had the Israelites.(Rom. 10:21) The Gentiles were being grafted in while the Israelites were being temporarily being hardened, the Apostles were appointed to carry the message to them.

 

Remember: The key principle to remember is this: What ever is true of the Saints is also true of the Apostles, but what ever is true of the Apostles may or may not be true of all the saints.

So, you believe that God lavished on all the saints all wisdom and understand "the mystery of His will"? (Eph. 1:8-9)

I could have sworn that the mystery was revealed to the the divine messengers of God, namely his apostles. Yep, that is what Eph. 3:1-7 specifically explains. The mystery was revealed by God to the apostles, not to all the saints as you assert.

I'm not sure what word you are referring too? Are you talking about the word predestination?

 

I'm not sure what word you are referring too? Are you talking about the word predestination? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Nope. The word "remnant." Nothing else you posted here even remotely dealt with the arguments I presented.

 

Here you say that God hardened them. It is also implicit (with wiggle room) in your arguments concerning John 6. Now you say that they hardened themselves by rejecting God's plan.

 

Specifically, Yes. These early saints received it through the teaching of the Apostles which makes them part of the "we". We get it through the completed Word of God.

 

Here you say that God hardened them. It is also implicit (with wiggle room) in your arguments concerning John 6. Now you say that they hardened themselves by rejecting God's plan. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you point me to the post where I said that they "hardened themselves."

I've NEVER said that Scott, you are putting words in my mouth. I've only said that God doesn't hardened anyone until after their rebellion, but I've always said that it was God who did the hardening.

I'll wait for you to find that post for me. Thanks.

 

That is right they did receive the mystery through the teaching of the apostles but that is not what Eph. 1:9 says, it says God realed to us the mystery. Then two verses later it says "we who first trusted in Christ." It is obvious that he has two seperate referants in this passage: (1) "We who first trusted in Christ" and (2) "you, who also trusted through the message"

Could Paul have meant for verses 3-12 to apply to all the saints? Yes. It is possible that was Paul's intent. I can admit objectively that is a possible interpretation. However, based upon the fact that their are two referants we can't be for sure in this passage. If your objectively honest in dealing with this text you must admit that it is possible that Paul when was speaking about election, mysteries being revealed to them by God and being the first to trust in Christ that he was refering to himself and the other apostles who were the first to trust in Christ.

Why else would Paul switch from "we" to "you" in verse 13, unless there is a distinction between the two referants? If "we" is the same as "you" in regard to all of these factors mentioned in verses 3-12, what is the purpose of verse 13 and following?

[By the way, I'm still wanting to hear how you define hardening and I really want to know what you think its purpose is.]

 

Who cares how many times the word "remnant" is used. Predestination is only used a in two passages, does that mean we should ignore it?

The fact that you can't see that my arguments are addressing your arguments shows either that you don't want to understand my viewpoint or you are just blind.

In Eph. 1:9 it says that God revealed "to us the mysteries"

Later in Eph. 3:1-7 Paul refers to this verse saying that he has briefly mentioned the mystery and they he procedes to show that this mystery was revealed by God only to the divine messengers of God. This supports my view that verses 3-12 are in reference to the apostles or "we who first trusted in Christ." How does that not deal with the issue?

 

Since we come into the world rebellious, are you saying that God is responsible for everyone's hardening?