Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction!

[William C]

Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I've only said that God doesn't harden anyone until after their rebellion, but I've always said that it was God who did the hardening.

Since we come into the world rebellious, are you saying that God is responsible for everyone's hardening? </font>[/QUOTE]No. The bible does teach that people can harden themselves by continually rebelling in sin and resisting the Holy Spirit.

But, I am saying there is a direct hardening of God that he uses in order to accomplish a purpose (ie Pharoah or Israel). So, we may come into this world with sinful desires but it's the constant giving in to those desires and ignoring God's calling that could produce hardening of ones heart or conscience. Unless God had a unique purpose in actively hardening you in your decisions, I doubt that He would.

 

[Frogman]

Romans 1 is a strong suggestion that God will certainly give such rebellious ones over to a reprobate mind.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Yes, God hardened all of Israel except the remnant.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I just did above. "Yes, God hardened all of Israel except the remnant." Those are your words.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
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?

Apparently you care as it has become your 'out' mechanism on texts that clearly declare that God chooses those that will be saved.

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.

Fallacy of limited alternatives. I do see your arguments. I am giving them due consideration... and rejecting them on the basis of my study.

Do you realize how pompous and offensive your remarks are? Just because I reject what I consider to be very weak arguments and forced interpretations does not make me stubborn, ignorant, nor 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?

First, because verse 10 collapses that possibility. Second because the mystery of Christ/the Gospel is not limited to the fact that the truth would be offered to the Gentiles. It includes the whole of the revelation of the Jesus, the Christ. How He would be revealed was veiled. He did not come as the conquering hero the Jews imagined to crush the Gentiles. This, in part, is what was hidden but now revealed and taught through the Apostles.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Yes, God hardened all of Israel except the remnant.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I just did above. "Yes, God hardened all of Israel except the remnant." Those are your words. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, Scott you are wearing me down with double talk and unfounded accusations, good debate tactics but poor hermeneutics.

You said that I said, "Israel hardened themselves." Your exact phrase was: Now you say that they hardened themselves by rejecting God's plan.

My question was: Where did I ever say that the Israelites hardened themselves?

I said they rejected God's plan therefore God hardened them. I never said they hardened themselves.

Look at my phrase you are using as your proof: "Yes, God hardened all of Israel except the remnant." How does that say, "Israel hardened themselves."?????

You are not making any sense Scott, I'm honestly trying to understand why your accusing me of unscriptural and illogical arguments while you misapply my logic and igoring the scripture I bring up saying that "its only used two times".

 

[William C]

Apparently you care as it has become your 'out' mechanism on texts that clearly declare that God chooses those that will be saved.

You don't believe that he chose for the Remnant to be saved? You don't believe the Remnant were Jews who deserved to be hardened but by God's grace were not? You don't believe the Apostles were among the Remnant?

Scott, I have all of these questions because you have yet to deal with the Remnant, regardless of how often it is used, it still must be dealt with.

Do you like talking to Arminians you say I don't believe in Predestination. You ask them how can that be when its taught in the sciptures and they say, yeah, only twice by Paul, so what? That is just ignorance on the part of the Arminian. He should have a doctrine of Predestination that in understood within his system, he shouldn't simply ignore it because its not mentioned that often.

Fallacy of limited alternatives. I do see your arguments. I am giving them due consideration... and rejecting them on the basis of my study.
Do you realize how pompous and offensive your remarks are? Just because I reject what I consider to be very weak arguments and forced interpretations does not make me stubborn, ignorant, nor blind.

Scott, I'm not trying to be mean, I trying to be patient, but you are making this very difficult. You say you understand my arguments then you say things like, "so you believe Israel hardens themselves," as if I ever said that? What do you expect me to think when you take my words and recreate some illogical construction of a staw man and start attacking it. Or when you ignore my arguments all together claiming that the Bible doesn't talk about it enough for it to be considered. This is ubsurd!

First, because verse 10 collapses that possibility. Second because the mystery of Christ/the Gospel is not limited to the fact that the truth would be offered to the Gentiles. It includes the whole of the revelation of the Jesus, the Christ. How He would be revealed was veiled. He did not come as the conquering hero the Jews imagined to crush the Gentiles. This, in part, is what was hidden but now revealed and taught through the Apostles.

Actually, Scott your the one not dealing with my arguments on this one. We all know what you believe about Eph. 1, I'm attacking that interpretation by offering another interpretation and supports for why my interpretation is better.

1. Verse 10 doesn't "collapse" anything. It only stengthens my view because is a summary statement of the "mystery" that he refers to in verse 9. To whom we know is only revealed by God to the apostles.

2. I never said what the mystery was or was not limited to. It doesn't really matter. The fact is in Eph. 3 Paul refers back to his statement in Eph. 1:9 when he says, "the mystery that I previously mentioned." And then he goes on to explain that the mystery is only revealed to the divine messagers from God. This supports my view that verse is in reference to the apostles and not to "you" the saints as seen in verse 13.

You say, "is what was hidden but now revealed and taught through the Apostles." That is a possible interpretation, I'm objective enough to admit that.

But that must be assumed in Eph. 1:9 because it specifically says God revealed this mystery to "us". Who did God reveal it to? The apostles.

Could you assume that Paul meant to say that God also revealed it to the saints through the apostles? Yes, but that would be an assumtion. The text says He revealed it to the apostles only and then the apostles revealed it to the saints.

You combine that fact with the fact that verse 13 changes referants from "we" to "you" then you can see that it's possible that Paul was actually speaking about "those who first trusted in Christ," meaning the Jewish believers. After all Paul does teach that the gospel is the power of God until salvation for everyone who believes, first to the Jew then to the Gentiles.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
You don't believe that he chose for the Remnant to be saved? You don't believe the Remnant were Jews who deserved to be hardened but by God's grace were not? You don't believe the Apostles were among the Remnant?

I don't believe that this remnant mentioned only once, Romans 11, gives you a legitimate basis to categorize any or all scriptures relating to election as pertaining to this "remnant" only. I know this is becoming frustrating for you but I reject that premise with full knowledge that you need it to explain away the direct statements of certain scriptures.

Yes, I believe that Paul gave encouragement to Jews in the Roman church that God would save a remnant as He had done so many times before. No, I do not accept your claim to a license for making all inconvenient scriptures that point to divine election apply only to this remnant. If you would like to move on, I am willing. If you persist in trying to establish this false premise then let us conclude.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Fallacy of limited alternatives. I do see your arguments. I am giving them due consideration... and rejecting them on the basis of my study.
Do you realize how pompous and offensive your remarks are? Just because I reject what I consider to be very weak arguments and forced interpretations does not make me stubborn, ignorant, nor blind.

Scott, I'm not trying to be mean, I trying to be patient, but you are making this very difficult. You say you understand my arguments then you say things like, "so you believe Israel hardens themselves," as if I ever said that?</font>[/QUOTE] You're trying to be patient???

You keep repeating things apparently under the illusion that I don't understand what you are saying. I do. I simply think you are wrong.

Actually, Scott your the one not dealing with my arguments on this one.

I am dealing with your arguments. You may not like that I won't agree with you but that does not mean that I am not honestly, fairly, and intelligently considering what you say. I am. They are not thoughtless arguments... in fact, I think they are over-thought because you have to find a way to preserve your presuppositions.

I'm attacking that interpretation by offering another interpretation and supports for why my interpretation is better.

I know what you are offering. I understand what you list as support and none the less reject that it is "better."

You say, "is what was hidden but now revealed and taught through the Apostles." That is a possible interpretation, I'm objective enough to admit that.

And again, I don't think your interpretation lacks reason. It simply explains things away too hard and too much for me.

But that must be assumed in Eph. 1:9 because it specifically says God revealed this mystery to "us". Who did God reveal it to? The apostles.

And I would argue that the "us" in this verse points back to the "we" in the first phrase of verse 7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood". This sentence begins with "In Him" and ends with "in Him"... that includes you and me.

Could you assume that Paul meant to say that God also revealed it to the saints through the apostles? Yes, but that would be an assumtion. The text says He revealed it to the apostles only and then the apostles revealed it to the saints.

Talk about assumptions? I am not trying to be a smart aleck here but where does this text say that? That might be your interpretation but this text says nothing about the revelation to the Apostles.

If you are relying on vs. 12 for help, I think AT Robertson's interpretation is more natural and reasonable than yours: "Probably the reference is to those who like Paul had once been Jews and had now found the Messiah in Jesus, some of whom like Simeon and Anna had even looked for the spiritual Messiah before his coming."

In any event, I don't think my "assumption" makes nearly the leap that yours does. You assume that "chosen" only refers to the Apostles and then read that interpretation all the way through the text. Since I reject that premise, that limitation does not constrain my interpretation.

You combine that fact with the fact that verse 13 changes referants from "we" to "you" then you can see that it's possible that Paul was actually speaking about "those who first trusted in Christ," meaning the Jewish believers. After all Paul does teach that the gospel is the power of God until salvation for everyone who believes, first to the Jew then to the Gentiles.

I didn't say that vs 12 wasn't referring to Jews... or perhaps even any others that contributed to the gospel reaching Ephesus and I do not assign the significance of this switch in vs 13 that you do.

In our debate, 'we' are believers 'you' are my opponent. Using two different pronouns to describe you, does not de-legitimize either one.

Verse 12 deals with those who believed before. Verse 13 with those to whom he is writing. Both groups fit cleanly and logically into the we of verse 11. If I were talking about you and I being believers I might say "We were both born again: I was saved in NC in 1971. You were saved in Texas in 19??. The differentiation of the last two phrases does not negate the unity of the first phrase.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I don't believe that this remnant mentioned only once, Romans 11

2Ki 19:31 -
For out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant, And those who escape from Mount Zion. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.'

Is. 1:9 
Unless the Lord of hosts Had left to us a very small remnant, We would have become like Sodom, We would have been made like Gomorrah.

Isa 10:20 -
And it shall come to pass in that day That the remnant of Israel, And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob, Will never again depend on him who defeated them, But will depend on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, To the Mighty God. 22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, A remnant of them will return; The destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

Isa 28:5 -
In that day the Lord of hosts will be For a crown of glory and a diadem of beauty To the remnant of His people,

Isa 37:31 -
And the remnant who have escaped of the house of Judah Shall again take root downward, And bear fruit upward.

Isa 37:32 -
For out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant, And those who escape from Mount Zion. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

Isa 46:3 -
"Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, And all the remnant of the house of Israel, Who have been upheld by Me from birth, Who have been carried from the womb:

Jer 6:9 -
Thus says the Lord of hosts: "They shall thoroughly glean as a vine the remnant of Israel; As a grape-gatherer, put your hand back into the branches."

Jer 23:3 -
"But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.

Jer 31:7 -
For thus says the Lord: "Sing with gladness for Jacob, And shout among the chief of the nations; Proclaim, give praise, and say, 'O Lord, save Your people, The remnant of Israel!'

Joe 2:32 -
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the Lord has said, Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.

Mic 2:12 -
"I will surely assemble all of you, O Jacob, I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together like sheep of the fold, Like a flock in the midst of their pasture; They shall make a loud noise because of so many people.

Mic 5:7 -
Then the remnant of Jacob Shall be in the midst of many peoples, Like dew from the Lord, Like showers on the grass, That tarry for no man Nor wait for the sons of men. And the remnant of Jacob Shall be among the Gentiles, In the midst of many peoples, Like a lion among the beasts of the forest, Like a young lion among flocks of sheep, Who, if he passes through, Both treads down and tears in pieces, And none can deliver.

Zep 3:13 -
The remnant of Israel shall do no unrighteousness And speak no lies, Nor shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth; For they shall feed their flocks and lie down, And no one shall make them afraid."

Ro 9:27 -
Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.

Ro 11:5 -
Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Scott, Remnant simply means "the few"; "the part";"the remains" or "the rest." It's not some weird new doctrine, its simply a reference to the Jews who weren't hardened. Most of Israel was hardened "the rest" were not. It's that simple, you seem to think I am making it out to be more than that. I'm not. I'm just showing you what the text says. Some Israelites are hardened, some are not. PERIOD.

Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

gives you a legitimate basis to categorize any or all scriptures relating to election as pertaining to this "remnant" only.

Election is not some weird doctrine either. It simply means "chosen." Israel was chosen as the nation that God would work through. God chose 12 men to be apostles. God chose to harden most of Israel and chose to reserve "the rest" for a special purpose. God chose to allow the Gentiles entrance into the covenant.

I'm not aware where the scripture speaks of God chosing to individually save someone. Am I wrong?

I know this is becoming frustrating for you but I reject that premise with full knowledge that you need it to explain away the direct statements of certain scriptures.

Scott, what is frustrating is the fact that you will not acknowledge the remnant or hardened Israel, as if they are not even mentioned because its like you fear I'll trap you or something. It's one thing to say "I reject that premise" and then explain why the premise is flawed, but just to reject it because you know I "need it to explain" my views is absurd.

Why do you reject my teachings about he remnant and hardened Israel? What is your view. (This is called debating)

You're trying to be patient???

You keep repeating things apparently under the illusion that I don't understand what you are saying. I do. I simply think you are wrong.

Then tell me why you think I'm wrong. Who are the remnant in your view. What does hardening mean in your view? What have I taught that is not consistant with scripture, why?

You misapply what I say so I feel like I need to restate everything for you. Please deal with my arguments.

I am dealing with your arguments. You may not like that I won't agree with you but that does not mean that I am not honestly, fairly, and intelligently considering what you say. I am.

Not agreeing with me doesn't mean you have dealt with the argument. Dealing with the argument means you explain what I have said is wrong and why and then establish what you believe about the issue. Make sense?

Talk about assumptions? I am not trying to be a smart aleck here but where does this text say that? That might be your interpretation but this text says nothing about the revelation to the Apostles.

I was refering to Eph. 3:1-7. We will just agree to disagree on Eph. 1 but I would still like to hear what you have to say concerning hardened Israel and the remnant. Thank you.

 

[rufus]

I am totally AMAZED at how long people can discuss a CONTRADICTION, which is undeniably and logically false!

rufus

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:


Scott, Remnant simply means "the few"; "the part";"the remains" or "the rest."

I apologize for not being more clear. But I was referring to your remnant, not other remnants mentioned in the Bible. Even the Romans 9 reference is an OT quote that was general, rather than specific.

I was refering to Eph. 3:1-7.

OK and I still say that you cannot by any direct method define those mentioned in Eph 1:12 by the text of Eph 3.

I would still like to hear what you have to say concerning hardened Israel and the remnant. Thank you.

We discussed this fairly extensively on pg 3. If there is something I did not answer there then please be specific. There was a remnant of the Jews that accepted Christ. It was a national hardening with personal implications but didn't affect all Jews. What I disagree with, that you have yet to justify, is dismissing select scriptures on election based on your interpretation of which ones apply to this remnant only. It is my opinion which has been more confirmed by our interaction that your presuppositions demand that you find this link.

This is a point I am just not willing to concede. Many use reasonable sounding false premises to steer people into their peculiar interpretations. You may be right but I am to date convinced that you are not.

I am aware that your view is not new. Adam Clarke's commentary contains a similar explaination of Eph 1. I find other commentators more convincing as they let the text mean what it means in its context. I think those who share your view must strain the text too greatly to prove your point.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by rufus:
I am totally AMAZED at how long people can discuss a CONTRADICTION, which is undeniably and logically false!

Your right Rufus, I've been thinking that about Calvinists for years!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I apologize for not being more clear. But I was referring to your remnant, not other remnants mentioned in the Bible. Even the Romans 9 reference is an OT quote that was general, rather than specific.

"general, rather than specific." ??? What does this mean? I'm not understanding what you don't agree with in my interpretation of Paul's use of the this word in Romans. I believe the Remnant are "the rest" of Israel who were not hardened, that's it. Do you disagree with that?

OK and I still say that you cannot by any direct method define those mentioned in Eph 1:12 by the text of Eph 3.

Actually, I'm attempting to define those mentioned in Eph. 1:9 by the text of Eph. 3. Notice that Eph. 3 refers to the fact that he has already spoken about the mystery:

Eph 3:3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.

This links these two passages together. Both of them speak about God revealing a mystery. The second passage is more specific than the first telling us that this mystery was only made know by God to His divine messengers. Eph. 1:9 says that He [God] revealed the mysteries to "us." Who is "us" in this passage?

Two options:
1. "Us" refers to the apostles because God only revealed these mysteries to them.
2. "Us" refers to all the saints because God revealed it to everyone eventually through the apostle's message.

I have admitted that option two can be acceptable, but so can option one. In light of the fact that Paul does refer to "those who first trusted in Christ" and the fact that he does change his pronouns from "us/we" to "you" in verse 13 shows that there very well could be a distinction in how God dealt with "the remnant," especially the apostles, and "the saints" who believed through their message.

We discussed this fairly extensively on pg 3. If there is something I did not answer there then please be specific. There was a remnant of the Jews that accepted Christ. It was a national hardening with personal implications but didn't affect all Jews.

Don't stop, keep on going. You were so close to actually giving me some substance on your belief concerning hardening then you diverted. -sigh-

You said, "There was a remnant of the Jews that accepted Christ."

Were these remnant hardened?

You also said, "It was a national hardening with personal implications but didn't affect all Jews."

What were the personal implications? How specifically did it affect them as opposed to those who it didn't affect?

What I disagree with, that you have yet to justify, is dismissing select scriptures on election based on your interpretation of which ones apply to this remnant only. It is my opinion which has been more confirmed by our interaction that your presuppositions demand that you find this link.

I don't mean to dismiss any verses concerning election, only to understand them in light of the historical context in which these concepts are being taught. This is why I am presisting on the questions concerning the hardening of Israel. It's these questions that lead us to the unique historical context of the 1st century.

If Jesus' audience is Israel they are in one of two boats: they are either hardened or they are the remnant. This fact will most definitely affect one's understanding of the text, don't you agree?

This is a point I am just not willing to concede. Many use reasonable sounding false premises to steer people into their peculiar interpretations. You may be right but I am to date convinced that you are not.

I don't expect you to "concede" this point so easily. I didn't. I was raised an ignorant Arminian, converted to Calvinism, debated for over 9 years that Calvinism was the right doctrine, saw these points concerning Israel's hardening and tried to explain them within my Calvinistic system, I failed. I wouldn't admit that, I ignored them, avoided them, ran from them, because my pride couldn't concede the fact that I may have been wrong all those years that I was soooo sure I was right. Talk about humbling. I though coming to know Calvinism was humbling but it was nothing to the shock my pride took when God showed me I was wrong. I live in a world of people, many of whom I converted to Calvinism, who still think I'm a Calvinist because I'm still too proud and maybe a bit scared to concede that I was wrong. Isn't that sad?

I can't get upset with you Scott for not conceding a point that to this day I'm not willing to concede to in front of my closest friends. So, whether or not you concede this point or not is up to you. The fact that you acknowledge the point and see that it is an option to be considered is a start. If you can figure out how to defeat it, please let me know.

I am aware that your view is not new. Adam Clarke's commentary contains a similar explaination of Eph 1. I find other commentators more convincing as they let the text mean what it means in its context. I think those who share your view must strain the text too greatly to prove your point.

It's all perspective Scott. Try to read the text as an Arminian would. Pretend that Arminianism is right and then read it again. How would you interpret it then? Does it make sense? Is it possible?

Every system has its difficulties, I admit that, it's fun to watch those who hold to other systems dance through the mind fields of the passages that support your system, and its not so much fun when you have to tread through the mind field of the verses that seemily support another's system. I guess that is the appeal of this forum!

[ March 16, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
"general, rather than specific." ??? What does this mean? I'm not understanding what you don't agree with in my interpretation of Paul's use of the this word in Romans. I believe the Remnant are "the rest" of Israel who were not hardened, that's it. Do you disagree with that?

The first application of the Romans 9 quote of Isaiah was to the remnant of the captivity.

A remnant that would be saved in the church age is one meaning and application of the word remnant. By usage, it is not the primary one of scripture. The Romans 11 usage is the only one that necessarily identifies Jews that would be won to the church. The passage in Romans 9 had past, present, and future implications.

Two options:
1. "Us" refers to the apostles because God only revealed these mysteries to them.
2. "Us" refers to all the saints because God revealed it to everyone eventually through the apostle's message.

And as stated before, I realize it is frustrating to you but I simply disagree with you about which one makes more sense, is more natural, and fits the form of Paul's teachings. It appears from your redundancy that you think the problem is that I am not seeing something or am being hard headed. Please believe me. You have more than made your case... I simply find it unconvincing.

Don't stop, keep on going. You were so close to actually giving me some substance on your belief concerning hardening then you diverted. -sigh-

I am not sure what you think you are leading me to but I am sure that I don't like to be patronized. I don't think there is anything further to believe. Some of the Jews were saved. As a nation, they were hardened so that the Gospel could come to the Gentiles. Paul employed language that all Jews would relate to and find comfort in to reassure Roman Jews that some of their people would believe in the Messiah and be saved. That is pretty much it in a nut shell.

You said, "There was a remnant of the Jews that accepted Christ."

Were these remnant hardened?

No. And on an individual basis, those who were hardened were hardened the same way non-elect Gentiles are- by their own sin nature. As stated before, God employed a national hardening against Israel.

What were the personal implications? How specifically did it affect them as opposed to those who it didn't affect?

Many of them were not elect. God allowed them to pursue their own sinful desires. It was His providential will that the Jews should not only reject the Christ but join with the Gentiles in trying to destroy Him.

only to understand them in light of the historical context in which these concepts are being taught. This is why I am presisting on the questions concerning the hardening of Israel.

And this is precisely my problem with your argument. You take one passage of scripture and use it to form context for numerous others. I have explained what I think the nature and extent of this hardening is. I don't think it limits the extent of divine election.

If Jesus' audience is Israel they are in one of two boats: they are either hardened or they are the remnant. This fact will most definitely affect one's understanding of the text, don't you agree?

I prefer hardened and elect. And since the audience of the NT is also the Gentiles we are likewise in two boats: hardened and elect. Paul states in both Col and Gal that there is neither Jew nor Greek. According to Romans 3, the Jews had a special place. Not all of them were lost even though the nation rejected its Messiah. I don't read anything else into these passages. I believe your position stretches scripture.

I don't expect you to "concede" this point so easily.

I don't think you understand. I am not conceding this point at all. You have done a fine job explaining your position. I have pointed out what I thought was wrong with it. You have tried again, and again, and again... I still think you are wrong. Truly, I have considered your explaination. It depends on several interdependent interpretations that I believe are either incorrect or over extended.

It's all perspective Scott. Try to read the text as an Arminian would. Pretend that Arminianism is right and then read it again. How would you interpret it then? Does it make sense? Is it possible?

I likewise grew up in a loose form of OSAS arminianism. It left me with numerous difficulties that I found unreconcilable. For one, I believe the only logical conclusion of the arminian ideal is open theism. If God knows before hand and has the power to change the outcome then arminianism offers the exact same outcome as calvinism- just much more difficult to reconcile to the Bible.

Every system has its difficulties...

Which is why I believe calvinism most ably explains the tensions/difficulties within scripture. It isn't that I haven't considered other alternatives... they actually came first and disappointed me.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scott J:
You said, "There was a remnant of the Jews that accepted Christ."

Were these remnant hardened?

No. And on an individual basis, those who were hardened were hardened the same way non-elect Gentiles are- by their own sin nature. As stated before, God employed a national hardening against Israel.

Ok, thank you for your clear answer.

If I do understand you correctly you are saying that among the Jews and Gentiles the elect are not hardened but the non-elect are hardened. And you seem to insist that God does not actively harden individuals, as the scripture seems to indicate, but that men are only hardened by their own sin nature.

If this is correct I have some follow up questions:

1. Why does Paul only speak of God's active hardening in reference to the Israelites if indeed all non-elect people are hardened in the same manner?

2. Why does Paul say that the Israelites will hear and not understand so he is going to take the message to the Gentiles because they will listen, if indeed they were hardened in the same manner as were the Israelites.

3. Why do the authors of scripture seem to blame or credit God with Israel's hardening if indeed he is not responsible?

4. You believe that those who are not hardened are the elect who will most definately be saved; therefore they will most certainly see, hear, understand and believe. Why then when Paul refers to what would happen if the "non-elect" were not hardened does he say:

OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.

Notice the word "might." Its in the subjunctive mood indicating that its only a possiblity that those who are not hardened might possibly see, hear, understand and believe, not that they would definately do so. How does that fit within you theology?

What were the personal implications? How specifically did it affect them as opposed to those who it didn't affect?

Many of them were not elect. God allowed them to pursue their own sinful desires. It was His providential will that the Jews should not only reject the Christ but join with the Gentiles in trying to destroy Him.

Many? Meaning some of the "elect" were hardened? Now that seems to contradict what you said earlier. Please explain. Thanks.

Was it the Gentiles who tried to destroy Christ? I thought that was hardened Israel. Pilot tried to stop the killing of Christ, it was the Jews who had him killed. Right?

only to understand them in light of the historical context in which these concepts are being taught. This is why I am presisting on the questions concerning the hardening of Israel.

And this is precisely my problem with your argument. You take one passage of scripture and use it to form context for numerous others.

Most of Romans 10 and all of Romans 11; Matthew 21; Mark 4; John 12; Acts 28; many other reference in the NT to Israel's hardening and many OT passages is not what I call "one passage of scripture."

I have explained what I think the nature and extent of this hardening is. I don't think it limits the extent of divine election.

I don't either. I believe it defines election differently than Calvinists, who do not consider this historical context when drawing their conclusions about the nature of man and the sovereignty of God in regard to salvation.

If Jesus' audience is Israel they are in one of two boats: they are either hardened or they are the remnant. This fact will most definitely affect one's understanding of the text, don't you agree?

I prefer hardened and elect. And since the audience of the NT is also the Gentiles we are likewise in two boats: hardened and elect.

Now you seem to say that none of the elect were hardened? Before you said "many" am I just not understanding something?

More questions:
1. Since you seem to equate hardened with "non-elect" how do you explain the fact that Israel's hardening was temporary and that many of those who were hardened and crucified Christ came to believe in Christ as we see recorded in Acts? Since hardening is temporary doesn't that mean this inability to believe will end when the hardening ends?

2. You say the the non-elect were hardened, which we have established is the reason they can't believe, but isn't hardening something that comes to someone who has lived in sin and rebellion after a period of time? You teach that people are born unable to see, hear or understand but hardening doesn't occur until God "gives them over," which doesn't happen until their thinking becomes futile from refusing to acknowledging God in creation.

Again, Scott, I was a solid Calvinist when these questions were posed to me. I couldn't answer them while being honest with the text. I'm sincerely not trying to trap you, I just want to understand you. When I was first presented with these problem it was my tendency to double talk, divert, and avoid the issues, I'm not saying that is your intention, I'm just saying beware of that tendency, we all have it. Please help me to understand how Calvinists deal with these apparent problems, I honestly don't know.

I don't expect you to "concede" this point so easily.

I don't think you understand. I am not conceding this point at all.

I'm sorry, you didn't understand I didn't think you were conceding at all, which is why I said, "I don't expect you to condede." I always leave open the possiblity that it could happen, because I know if you would have told me while I was a Calvinist that I would be debating for Arminianism one day I would have laughed and told you that you're crazy. Anything is possible.

You have done a fine job explaining your position.

Thank you

I have pointed out what I thought was wrong with it. You have tried again, and again, and again... I still think you are wrong.

As I think you can see from the questions above there is a lot here still to iron out, which I've been trying to get to for sometime.

These issues take time. You even admit Scott that you hadn't studied the doctrine of Hardening with any depth when we started this debate, I'm trying to get you to deal with the issues I've have been dealing with for years (and am still dealing with today). I'm not trying to patronize you in any way just force you to deal with the very issues that drug me away from Calvinism.

The reason I restate things again and again is because you misapply my beliefs showing me that you're not realing dealing with my arguments but with what you perceive to be my arguments (staw men). I have know doubt that you have a pretty decent understanding of most of my beliefs, that does not mean you have full understanding of all their implications yet (which is obvious from some of your comments). This is true of anyone who first comes to know a doctrine. Think about the questions and false implications that people have when first introduced to Calvinism, I think you are responding to my doctrines in the same manner.

That's not a put down, its natural, I did it too, so I can't blame you for having the same reactions I had. But that is not going to keep me from pressing the issues that this doctrine presents. So, please be patient as we work through these issues. I don't expect to "convert" you, I am going through this as much for me as for you. Ok?

For one, I believe the only logical conclusion of the arminian ideal is open theism.

Just like some people believe that the only logical conclusion for Calvinism is double predestination, determinism, human robotics, God as responsible for sin and damnation of non-elect, etc etc. Isn't that called "ad hominem" reasoning to carry out ones beliefs to their logical conclusions. Any of our beliefs can be taken to seed and carried to "logical" extremes that can't be supported in scripture, so let's not go there.

Every system has its difficulties...

Which is why I believe calvinism most ably explains the tensions/difficulties within scripture. It isn't that I haven't considered other alternatives... they actually came first and disappointed me.

As was the case with me until I objectively and honestly dealt with these issues. I don't believe anyone would ever adopt the extreme tensions that the Calvinistic dogma creates if not for a few very convincing passages that when read outside of their context leads to false conclusions. I know that is a big claim to make, but that's why dealing with the historical context is so essential to understand why these passages shouldn't be understood in the manner the Western mind has adopted through Augustinian teachings.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:


If I do understand you correctly you are saying that among the Jews and Gentiles the elect are not hardened but the non-elect are hardened.

Yes and no. The elect are chosen and given spiritual life by an act of God's perfect will. They are no more nor less likely to be hardened prior to regeneration than anyone else. Certainly, some people previously very hardened to the Gospel have a miraculous change of heart in a moment owing to no particular material event.

Those who are not elect continue in the nature they were born with which makes them hard by their own choices. No saved person is such by merit. No lost person is condemned by their inferior mental or spiritual ability.

Since I disagree with the premise of your question, it makes no sense to individually answer questions based on that premise.

Again, Scott, I was a solid Calvinist when these questions were posed to me.

I am not really a "solid Calvinist" though. I believe that the basic outline presented as calvinism best explains what the Bible says.

I couldn't answer them while being honest with the text.

Being a little short on time and having disagreed with your premise, I only skimmed a few of your questions. However, if I accepted your premises then I might have an equally difficult time answering these questions. If I did accept them, I would probably be either arminian (and probably open theists since I believe that to be the only logical conclusion of arminianism) or hyper-calvinist.

I'm sincerely not trying to trap you, I just want to understand you.

I do understand. Whether the trap is intentional or not, I am not willing to concede the premises that make these questions unanswerable.

Please help me to understand how Calvinists deal with these apparent problems, I honestly don't know.

I am considering your premises first. I have probably argued the particulars of your conclusion too much as it is but it is the bases that you accept that I find unconvincing more so than your logic following.

These issues take time. You even admit Scott that you hadn't studied the doctrine of Hardening with any depth when we started this debate,

I don't think that is what I said. It was your particular take on "hardening" that I am most unfamiliar with. Seldom do arminians get that intricate with their defenses.

I'm trying to get you to deal with the issues I've have been dealing with for years (and am still dealing with today).

No problem with that but your comments come across as condescending. Just an observation... and I think I will go clean up another post since this is a better way to say it than being argumentative.

I'm not trying to patronize you in any way just force you to deal with the very issues that drug me away from Calvinism.

And while you will probably continue to disagree, I think I am. The first measure has to be the soundness of the premise of an argument. That is where my difference with your ideas is based- the premises.

The reason I restate things again and again is because you misapply my beliefs showing me that you're not realing dealing with my arguments but with what you perceive to be my arguments (staw men).

But my "straw men" are often just as valid based on your premises as your projections are.

 

[William C]

Since I disagree with the premise of your question, it makes no sense to individually answer questions based on that premise.

Scott, this is what I was talking about when I warned you not to divert and avoid the arguments. This is an obvious blow off of my honest questions. That's insulting to me

There is no "premise" except yours. I asked these question based upon what I saw as your premise of hardening based on the little information you gave me. They were merely clarifying questions to find out how you dealt with some of these issues.

Yes and no. The elect are chosen and given spiritual life by an act of God's perfect will. They are no more nor less likely to be hardened prior to regeneration than anyone else.

Ok, now I'm asking you questions, not based upon any premise. This is totally based upon the information you have given me to work with here:

1. You seem to be saying that not everyone is hardened which I gather from your statement, "They are no more nor less likely to be hardened prior to regeneration than anyone else." Now, based on that premise alone. We know that scripture teaches that to be hardened means to be blind, deaf, unable to understand and believe, "otherwise they might hear, see, understand and turn." (Acts 28:26-27) If you don't believe everyone is hardened then according to these passages they would have the ability to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing as scripture clearly asserts in these texts. What do you think?

Those who are not elect continue in the nature they were born with which makes them hard by their own choices.

You said, "makes them hard by their own choices." So you think they become hardened by their choices and not that they are born hardened as Calvinism's "total depravity" teaches?

Hardened = unable to see, hear, understand and turn to God (due to choices and rebellion, through the course of life)

Total Depravity = unable to see, hear, understand and turn to God (as a result of the Fall, from birth)

I see "hardening" supported in the text but where is "total depravity?" Again, I agree all man are born with a sin nature and guilty of sin, but just not "totally unable" as Calvinism asserts. How do you respond to this argument?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:


There is no "premise" except yours.

Yes there is. Your contention that election the way calvinists use the term applies only to a certain set of 1st century Jews. That is at least one premise that I would object to.

[qb] Now, based on that premise alone. We know that scripture teaches that to be hardened means to be blind, deaf, unable to understand and believe, "otherwise they might hear, see, understand and turn." (Acts 28:26-27) If you don't believe everyone is hardened then according to these passages they would have the ability to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing as scripture clearly asserts in these texts. What do you think?

I think we need to back up a step and establish why people are hardened. They are hardened because of their nature- by the choices and attitudes that this nature always produces. I believe that every lost person is "hardened" for lack of a better word. Moving from this premise, something must happen to change that "hardening" so that the gospel can be received and believed. Left to our own will, we will always become more "hardened", never less so.

You said, "makes them hard by their own choices." So you think they become hardened by their choices and not that they are born hardened as Calvinism's "total depravity" teaches?

I don't accept the dichotomy you have tried to establish here. People are born with a sin nature. That nature has a direct result of hardening the person to God.

Whether purely Calvinist or not, I believe it is man's unwillingness that makes him totally depraved. That unwillingness is a 100% effective rule for all men living in their original sin nature. I believe there is a real choice here that men exercise... simply that they will always choose in rebellion to God unless God intervenes.

I believe it is completely against man's nature to choose God over himself. He is no more capable of accepting God by his own "good" decision than God is capable of denying Himself. God can do whatever He wants within His nature... as can man- meaning that man will not accept the gospel of Christ because he simply doesn't want to.

 

[William C]

Yes there is. Your contention that election the way calvinists use the term applies only to a certain set of 1st century Jews. That is at least one premise that I would object to.

What does this have to do with my questions concerning hardening? We may disagree to whom "elect" refers to but that in no way affects those question, and you know it. This is clearly just a diversion because you recognize the problems that the biblical teachings of hardening create for your system, otherwise you would simply explain your stance without all the double talk.

 

[William C]

I think we need to back up a step and establish why people are hardened. They are hardened because of their nature- by the choices and attitudes that this nature always produces. I believe that every lost person is "hardened" for lack of a better word. Moving from this premise, something must happen to change that "hardening" so that the gospel can be received and believed. Left to our own will, we will always become more "hardened", never less so.

This is quite different than what you seemed to say earlier, but maybe I was just misunderstanding you.

Ok, now I know where you stand (I think); can I ask a question without you dismissing it saying that it has a false premise?

I agree with what you say here. Left to our own, we will always become more "hardened." And I also agree this is due to our fallen nature. But notice that you even say that we "become" hardened not that we are born hardened. In other words, after dening the revelation of God in creation or through his Word and rebelling against it and living in sin our hearts will become more and more hard. Eventually God could "give us over" to our lusts and futile thinking. If left to ourselves we all become hardened, but we are not born that way as Calvinism contends. How do you explain that?

I don't accept the dichotomy you have tried to establish here. People are born with a sin nature. That nature has a direct result of hardening the person to God.

There is no dichotomy Scott. I'm simply tring to show Calvinism's inconsistances. You even illustrate it for me in your words here. You say our sin nature has a "result of hardening the person to God." Therefore, you must believe (in order to be consistant) that man is not born hardened to God, but that they become that way only after they continually reject God and live in sin.

Whether purely Calvinist or not, I believe it is man's unwillingness that makes him totally depraved. That unwillingness is a 100% effective rule for all men living in their original sin nature. I believe there is a real choice here that men exercise... simply that they will always choose in rebellion to God unless God intervenes.

I agree with this. But once again you say "makes him totally depraved" thus showing that we are not born that way as Calvinisms "Totally Depravity" teaches. We only become that way when we become "unwilling" to submit to God's revelation to us.

I believe it is completely against man's nature to choose God over himself. He is no more capable of accepting God by his own "good" decision than God is capable of denying Himself. God can do whatever He wants within His nature... as can man- meaning that man will not accept the gospel of Christ because he simply doesn't want to.

Again I agree. If left to himself man is not going to choose to follow God's ways, but consider the fact that God hasn't left us to ourselves since the entrance of the new covenant. He sent the Spirit, who calls all men (Rev. 22:17); he sent the scripture, which gives us knowledge of God and provokes fear or maybe envy (for the Jews) which provoke man's will; he sent messengers to persuade man and to proclaim the gospel by the power of the HS and faith comes by hearing the word of truth. We are not "left to ourselves" since the work of God provided all of these influences and then some.

[ March 19, 2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes there is. Your contention that election the way calvinists use the term applies only to a certain set of 1st century Jews. That is at least one premise that I would object to.

What does this have to do with my questions concerning hardening? We may disagree to whom "elect" refers to but that in no way affects those question, and you know it. This is clearly just a diversion because you recognize the problems that the biblical teachings of hardening create for your system, otherwise you would simply explain your stance without all the double talk. </font>[/QUOTE]Come on Bill. From the start you contended that we were discussing three different groups: the elect Jews, the hardened Jews, and the Gentiles that were free to believe or not to believe. This is not a diversion. In fact, it is part of the core argument you started out with when I joined this thread.

I am not evading or creating diversion but I will not conduct this debate on the foundation of your presuppositions. When you ask questions based on an obvious premise that I disagree with, I will continue to go back to the premise rather than being suckered into arguing the meaningless.