CALVINISM MAKES THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL DECEPTIVE

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
First, the "theology of hardening" does not account for the nature of gentiles. They too, just like the jews, have freely rejected Christ and are totally depraved. Paul treats Jew and Gentile alike in this regard.

When did the Gentiles "freely reject Christ?"

You are correct the "theology of hardening" doesn't account for the nature of the Gentile, but it gives a clear picture of the inability of those who are Hardened and what people would be like who are not hardened in contrast. And it set up the Gentiles in contrast to Hardened Israel. Look at this passage as an example:

Act 28:26 saying, 'GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, "YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Act 28:27 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'"
Act 28:28 "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; and they will listen."

Notice two things about this passage.

1. The word "otherwise" tells us what the nature of a man would be who is not "hardened". They "might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart" and be healed.

2. The fact that the Gentiles are set up in contrast to the nature of those who are hardened. Isreal will not listen because they have been hardened, the Gentiles will listen because they have not.

One question: If people are born unable to hear or understand the things of God as Calvinism's doctrine of Total Inability teaches why would hardening and Jesus' veiling of the gospel to the Israelites be necessary to graft in the Gentiles?

Second, the "theology of hardening" does not account for the truth about the OT Jews.

How do you mean? It seems clear to me. God held out his hands to an obstinate people who continually rejected him (most of them - some as we see in Heb. 11 had faith). So, he hardened them to ingraft the Gentiles.

Third, the theology of hardening is never mentioned in most of the passages that we are talking.

Not so, the gospels were written as a whole account of Jesus' ministry which is to be understood together and the doctrine of hardening is found thoughout all the gospels.

Plus, the letters of Paul are rich with these teachings especially at the heart of Calvinism's teaching in Romans 9 as seen in 10 and 11.

Fourth, my "consideration" of the theology of hardening has to do with the clarity of the texts that dissociate it from the truth about the nature of man.

I'm not sure I follow you here? Are you saying that "hardening" doesn't have anything to do with the nature of man? Hardening describes men's inability to understand the things of God without His enabling, which seems awefully similiar to your teachings about man's nature, don't you think? How do you define hardening?

Fifth, I think your whole premise about hardening is a desparate attempt to explain away the text.

I can understand how you might think that, but to be honest when I came to understand these truths I, like you, were desprately attempting to explain away "hardening" so I wouldn't have to admit I had been wrong about being a Calvinist for all those years.

The context of these passages does not addres that hardening, and even if it did, it still compromises your "deceitless offer" of the gospel. Why was Christ offering the gospel to a hardened nation who couldn't believe anway.

First, The context is the historical situation in which the words are being spoken, not just the ten verses before and after. John 12 is only 6 chapter after John 6 and the hardening is a historical context that had not changed.

Second, it does not compromise my argument against Calvinism's "deceptive offer" because, as I have explained to Russell, Israel has already made their choice and their hardening is temporary. Read Romans 11 and you will see that after the Gentiles are saved this will provoke hardened Israel to jealousy and some of them could turn from their unbelief and be saved (but only after Gentiles are grafted in, not while Jesus was in the midst of his public ministry). Therefore, Jesus call to all is geniune and not at all deceptive.

You think when Jesus says, "He who has ears let him hear." That he is speaking about "spiritual ears" to hear the truth of what he is saying, right? In other words, only the elect can hear. In a sense, you are right. What Jesus is actually meaning is "He who has not been hardened let him hear." Look at what the passages say about hardening the first thing spoken about is the lack of ability to hear. So, those chosen from among Israel (the Remnant) who did not recieve the hardening (could be called "the elect") and they would have had ears to hear, meaning unhardened ears that "MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN" so God could heal them. Makes sense doesn't it.

Have you considered that the fact that the theologies don't talk about this means that it is you who are wrong and not they?? That should hit your square in the forehead ... metaphorically speaking of course.

Your "theologies" maybe. Try reading people besides those who agree with you. Western thought is'nt always the best route (it is often influenced by Augustine and Calvin).

Hardening is not "almost exactly the same as" total depravity. It is much different.

How so? You have not provided any kind of a definition of what you think hardening is. I'm interested to hear your view.

 

[sturgman]

I don't see how you see the Jews condition to be seperate from the gentiles. Paul spent all of Romans 1-3 explaining they are the same.

Chapter 1 - Gentiles
Chapter 2 - Jews
chapter 3 - Both

Also, you speak of the hardening, as that they already rejected it. Does that mean because the jews of old rejected it, then Jews today cannot hear unless they are part of the remnant? This would still cause many errors to your system. I see no distiction between the Jew and the gentile in this regaurd. Romans 9-11 answers the most logical of questions that the Jew that Paul was writing to would logically ask after Romans 8. Can a physical Jew go to hell? Paul addresses it in the three chapters then continues after he fully addresses soteriology in 1-11, with "Therefore..." It carries on a noce progression. To make hardening an issue that you make it would throw a major kink in the letter.

 

[romanbear]

Hi Larry;
A quote from you does it say you don't believe;
-------------------------------------------------

You said in another thread that we were blind and that you hoped we would open our minds to the truth and turn to Christ.
-------------------------------------------------

My reply;
You can be a Christian and still turn to Christ for truth. You can be a Christian and be mislead. Millions are mislead and Blind because they won't ask for His guidance. I'm told men have a hard time asking for directions. I guess I'm the exception, I ask everyday for fear of being decieved.

I know that Satan is a very intelligent character. He is also the father of lies. He's better at it than anyone on this earth. Deception is his specialty. The only way to keep from being deceived is by trusting the lord to guide you. You have to be willing to do this because He will not force you. Just let Him know you are willing. You are, aren't you?
Romanbear

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
I don't see how you see the Jews condition to be seperate from the gentiles. Paul spent all of Romans 1-3 explaining they are the same.

Chapter 1 - Gentiles
Chapter 2 - Jews
chapter 3 - Both

Paul is showing that they both have sin. We all agree to this now, but then the Jews only taught Gentiles were sinful, Paul was showing that everyone was sinful and in the need of a savior (who requires faith as seen in 3:21 and following). No where in these first 3 chapters does Paul mention anything about 'total inability'. In fact in 3:21 and following he mention faith almost 10 different times and not once does he allude to possiblity that they were unable to have faith. Why? That's not the point he is making here. He is showing that everyone is in need of righteousness that is only found in Christ, he is not trying to prove total inability.

It's not until chapter 10 and 11 that Paul introduces Hardening explaining why God's own people were rejecting this righteousness that comes through faith as apposed to the "righteousness" they taught came through the law.

Also, you speak of the hardening, as that they already rejected it. Does that mean because the jews of old rejected it, then Jews today cannot hear unless they are part of the remnant? This would still cause many errors to your system. I see no distiction between the Jew and the gentile in this regaurd.

The fact that you see no distinction should worry you. Jesus continually rebukes the Jews for not believing in Him because of the words of the prophets that they are fully aware of. Remember when Jesus tells them "if you believe Moses you would believe in me because he spoke of me." The Jews, both old and new, had the revelation right there in front of them but refused to believe. This is a MAJOR distinction, the Gentiles had not been given the words of the prophets and therefore could not have continually rejected them and thus been hardened.

Romans 9-11 answers the most logical of questions that the Jew that Paul was writing to would logically ask after Romans 8. Can a physical Jew go to hell? Paul addresses it in the three chapters then continues after he fully addresses soteriology in 1-11, with "Therefore..." It carries on a noce progression.

Yes, it does carry a nice progression. Notice that Paul includes within his teaching of Soteriology the hardening process of Israel in chapter 10 and 11. Calvinists are the ones trying to make the hardening as if it has nothing to do with soteriology, according to your obsevation, it is obvious that hardening is a vital part of understanding our soteriology.

To make hardening an issue that you make it would throw a major kink in the letter.

I'm not the one who introduces hardening, Paul is. If you think his clear teaching about hardening in chapter 10 and 11 throws a kink in his progression of the Calvinistic system you will have to take it up with him when you get to heaven.

 

[Jimmy J.]

Brother Bill,

I've been doing some studing up on the issue of Israel's hardening. This stuff is pretty interesting and I hadn't really ever understood it before but it is starting to make more sense to me.

I was hoping Pastor Larry or Sturgman would respond to your question so I could see how Calvinist explain the difference between hardening and inability. The two Calvinistic commentator I read just deal with them as two completely separate issues but even what they write seems to avoid this obvious similarity between the two concepts.

Its almost like Calvinist's handle passages dealing with hardening like uneducated Arminians handle passages that deal with election, they either just ignore it, or they seperate it out from everything else and pretend like its not relevant to any of the discussions.

 

[TheTravelingMinstrel]

Israel's Rejection - Used to support frewill, but just because they had the ability to reject God, does not mean they have the ability to chose God.

oh and btw - our church fathers where 'calvinistic', but it wasn't calvinism then, it was Christianity.

Jesus says 'whosoever belieives' etc etc etc.

But He always told who will beleive/come/etc. come
"no one comes to the father unles it has been given to him"
"giving life to whom he pleases'
etc etc

 

[Yelsew]

TravelingMinstrel,

Consider that God has already stated his will, and provided the way 2000 years ago. It is now up to us to decide to believe or not believe unto eternal life.

 

[TheTravelingMinstrel]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
TravelingMinstrel,

Consider that God has already stated his will, and provided the way 2000 years ago. It is now up to us to decide to believe or not believe unto eternal life.

abd the only way i 'decided' to beleive is that i was drawn and the Lord found it pleasing in his sight ot grant me eternal life

 

[William C]

Originally posted by TheTravelingMinstrel:
Israel's Rejection - Used to support frewill, but just because they had the ability to reject God, does not mean they have the ability to chose God.

You obviously haven't been reading the entire argument. Israel's rejection resulted in their being hardened by God which means that they were made deaf and blind to the gospel. Sound fimilar? Sounds a lot like Total Inability doesn't it?

I thought I was going to get Pastor Larry or Sturgman to finally answer the question I've been asking the last month, but they have managed to avoid it like all the rest of you.

I'll ask you: 1. Why would God harden (meaning to make them unable to understand) a group of people who according to you are "hardened" from birth because of the Fall? Doesn't make much sense does it?

2. Why would Gentiles be contrasted to hardened Israel in Acts 28 if indeed all mankind is totally unable to understand the things of God as Calvinism suggests?

oh and btw - our church fathers where 'calvinistic', but it wasn't calvinism then, it was Christianity.

Which of the church fathers are you referring to?

 

[Ray Berrian]

The Traveling Minstrel,

How do you know that He came to you and granted you everlasting life? Seriously.

I was drawn by the Spirit of God but in my case, I asked Him to forgive me and to take away my sins when I was eleven years old. I invited Him into my heart and life.

 

[William C]

Pastor, I was really interested in hearing your reply to this post, let me repost it for you:

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
First, the "theology of hardening" does not account for the nature of gentiles. They too, just like the jews, have freely rejected Christ and are totally depraved. Paul treats Jew and Gentile alike in this regard.

When did the Gentiles "freely reject Christ?"

You are correct the "theology of hardening" doesn't account for the nature of the Gentile, but it gives a clear picture of the inability of those who are Hardened and what people would be like who are not hardened in contrast. And it set up the Gentiles in contrast to Hardened Israel. Look at this passage as an example:

Act 28:26 saying, 'GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, "YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Act 28:27 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'"
Act 28:28 "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; and they will listen."

Notice two things about this passage.

1. The word "otherwise" tells us what the nature of a man would be who is not "hardened". They "might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart" and be healed.

2. The fact that the Gentiles are set up in contrast to the nature of those who are hardened. Isreal will not listen because they have been hardened, the Gentiles will listen because they have not.

One question: If people are born unable to hear or understand the things of God as Calvinism's doctrine of Total Inability teaches why would hardening and Jesus' veiling of the gospel to the Israelites be necessary to graft in the Gentiles?

Second, the "theology of hardening" does not account for the truth about the OT Jews.

How do you mean? It seems clear to me. God held out his hands to an obstinate people who continually rejected him (most of them - some as we see in Heb. 11 had faith). So, he hardened them to ingraft the Gentiles.

Third, the theology of hardening is never mentioned in most of the passages that we are talking.

Not so, the gospels were written as a whole account of Jesus' ministry which is to be understood together and the doctrine of hardening is found thoughout all the gospels.

Plus, the letters of Paul are rich with these teachings especially at the heart of Calvinism's teaching in Romans 9 as seen in 10 and 11.

Fourth, my "consideration" of the theology of hardening has to do with the clarity of the texts that dissociate it from the truth about the nature of man.

I'm not sure I follow you here? Are you saying that "hardening" doesn't have anything to do with the nature of man? Hardening describes men's inability to understand the things of God without His enabling, which seems awefully similiar to your teachings about man's nature, don't you think? How do you define hardening?

Fifth, I think your whole premise about hardening is a desparate attempt to explain away the text.

I can understand how you might think that, but to be honest when I came to understand these truths I, like you, were desprately attempting to explain away "hardening" so I wouldn't have to admit I had been wrong about being a Calvinist for all those years.

The context of these passages does not addres that hardening, and even if it did, it still compromises your "deceitless offer" of the gospel. Why was Christ offering the gospel to a hardened nation who couldn't believe anway.

First, The context is the historical situation in which the words are being spoken, not just the ten verses before and after. John 12 is only 6 chapter after John 6 and the hardening is a historical context that had not changed.

Second, it does not compromise my argument against Calvinism's "deceptive offer" because, as I have explained to Russell, Israel has already made their choice and their hardening is temporary. Read Romans 11 and you will see that after the Gentiles are saved this will provoke hardened Israel to jealousy and some of them could turn from their unbelief and be saved (but only after Gentiles are grafted in, not while Jesus was in the midst of his public ministry). Therefore, Jesus call to all is geniune and not at all deceptive.

You think when Jesus says, "He who has ears let him hear." That he is speaking about "spiritual ears" to hear the truth of what he is saying, right? In other words, only the elect can hear. In a sense, you are right. What Jesus is actually meaning is "He who has not been hardened let him hear." Look at what the passages say about hardening the first thing spoken about is the lack of ability to hear. So, those chosen from among Israel (the Remnant) who did not recieve the hardening (could be called "the elect") and they would have had ears to hear, meaning unhardened ears that "MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN" so God could heal them. Makes sense doesn't it.

Have you considered that the fact that the theologies don't talk about this means that it is you who are wrong and not they?? That should hit your square in the forehead ... metaphorically speaking of course.

Your "theologies" maybe. Try reading people besides those who agree with you. Western thought is'nt always the best route (it is often influenced by Augustine and Calvin).

Hardening is not "almost exactly the same as" total depravity. It is much different.

How so? You have not provided any kind of a definition of what you think hardening is. I'm interested to hear your view. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Jimmy J.]

Bill wrote
Act 28:26 saying, 'GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, "YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Act 28:27 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'"
Act 28:28 "Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; and they will listen."

Notice two things about this passage.
1. The word "otherwise" tells us what the nature of a man would be who is not "hardened". They "might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart" and be healed.

Awesome! I've never even seen this text in this light before.

How do the Calvinists deal with this passage. It specifically says that those who are not hardened "might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts!" Then it even goes on to say that the Gentiles will listen, proving that they are not hardened like the Israelites and that they "might" hear with their ears and believe!

This passage along with Roman 10:17 proves that man (who is not hardened) does have the capasity for faith!

There is you proof that those who are not hardened by God have free will!!!!

WAY TO GO BILL! I REALLY LIKE YOU!!!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Jimmy J.:

How do the Calvinists deal with this passage.

They don't. As you can see.

 

[Frogman]

I find it wonderously funny that you two guys can mentally equate 'listening' to having a true knowledge of the truth. This is so laughable that I can barely respond to this thread. Your beliefs lump all people into one group and because they have ears and have the ability to listen you make them have an ability to choose something that their will prohibits.

Scripture is not talking about an educational experience where all sit in the classroom and know by historical proof what is and is not.

You do make my days brighter through your ability to make me laugh, I appreciate that.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

I posted the following in answer to your opening post, unless I have failed to see it, you failed to address this. This is ok. I don't mind being ignored, but if you will read it you will find my sentiments.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Originally posted by Frogman:
"Now thanks be unto God, which always causes us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

2 Cor. 2.14-17

This is why I do not accept anything short of the Sovereignty of God, anything else distorts itself into foolish questioning even unto the questioning of the sincerity of God.

Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

This passage says nothing that even addresses the issue of this post. If you could expound telling us what you think it means I might take the time to respond, but I see nothing that is contradictory or even difficult.

 

[tnelson]

1 Corinthinas 2:16

The aramo of death.... life.
To some, the message brings eternal life and ultimate glorification. To others, it is a stumbling stone of offense that brings eternal death (cf. 1 Pet. 2:6-8).


mike

 

[William C]

Once again, I don't see your point. The message is an aroma of life for those who believe it, but for those who don't, it's death. Where is the contradiction with what I believe?

 

[rufus]

Since rufus is quoted herein, perhaps rufus can categorically deny that the General Call of the Gospel is deceptive, that Jesus is deceptive, that the whole word of God is deceptive.

Perhaps he can categorically affirm that men are deceptive.

Brothers, if the effectual call to salvation is not communicated through the general call of the gospel, NNE WILL BE SAVED!

Let's stop this nonsense of referring to the Word of God as deceptive. NONE of US believe that!

rufus

 

[William C]

Originally posted by rufus:
Since rufus is quoted herein, perhaps rufus can categorically deny that the General Call of the Gospel is deceptive, that Jesus is deceptive, that the whole word of God is deceptive.

Perhaps he can categorically affirm that men are deceptive.

Brothers, if the effectual call to salvation is not communicated through the general call of the gospel, NNE WILL BE SAVED!

Let's stop this nonsense of referring to the Word of God as deceptive. NONE of US believe that!

Rufus, I know you don't believe it but I'm trying to show you that is what you are teaching. You say that certain texts of scripture lead us to believe that we must make a free choice and that people who first come to Christ are usually Arminians because these texts lead them to believe that they did choose Christ. Then you go on to teach that the "sign inside the house" correct that error of thinking by telling us that we didn't chose Christ he chose us and he didn't choose the rest of the world. So, you are teaching that the bible leads people to believe a lie until they get into the house and gain the maturity to see the real truth. That is a deceptive gospel. I know you don't think it is, but how could you not.

If I said to you, "Anyone can win this raffle if they buy a ticket." Which obviously leads you to believe that any anyone truly could win. However, after you bought the ticket you read the fine print on the back of the ticket and realize that you were preselected to win long before you bought the ticket and that no one else ever had a chance. Is that not deception? You lead someone to believe one thing then you change it later.

How is that not deceptive?