CALVINISM'S BLIND SPOT

Bro Bill, you stated-
What purpose does "envy" play in the role of salvation unless it is to affect man's will or desire?

CAN ANY CALVINIST ANSWER JUST THAT ONE QUESTION FOR ME SO WE CAN POSSIBLY MOVE ON TNE OF THE OTHER 4 THAT HAVE GONE UNANWERED?

"Envy" plays nothing in the role of salvation, and if you will look at the text Paul does not say that if I cause them to be envious enough, then they will except him. This speaks of Pauls desire to see his fellow bretheren come, (see also Rom 9:2) and this desire was strong in Paul, even willing to give up his own redemption so that the jews might come to Christ. Paul was not speaking of teasing the jew into a relationship with Christ. This is Christianity, not Amway.

 

Envy in ch. 11.14 is translated emulation. It is taken from a root word meaning to 'boil.'

It also means to result in fervency expressed in zeal. Thus, it is not envy Paul wishes to exact in his Jewish brethren. Note ch. 10; Paul is expressing his hope the Jewish people will not only express their zeal for God, which resulted in establishment of their own righteousness,(by their own will) but that their zeal which is already of God, will look to Christ, this does not imply they are to do accomplish this through the 'envy' Paul speaks of, nor through their own will.

Paul specifically says the remnant have accomplished this, but the nation has been blinded and failed to accomplish this. There is no reference to man believing of his own free-will.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Uh, it kind of is being used by all Calvinists to assume total depravity, when it is taken to be teaching individuals preteritioned to unbelief as opposed to the unconditionally elect, and this being part of "God's right to do what He wants to do".
It's interesting you say that, because the fact that it is not talking about total depravity is the proof that it is not about why one individual is saved and another is not.

Also in this vein, the "offense" to man is that he is in a state of sin with its condemnation, moreso than some idea that he cannot will himself out of it. Tell a person today he must receive Christ or he is damned, and he is offended that you would say that he is under such condemnation in the first place. Also, that his lifestyle is sin, and he would have to repent of it (admit it was wrong AND give it up). To the Jew, it's because he is still condemned even with all his Lawkeeping and heritage, and no better than anyone else. Neither is thinking "oh, you're saying I have to be elect in order to be saved, and that is not fair", so this is clearly not the "offense" as Calvinists assume it is.
It's in this context Paul answers "why does He yet find fault?" and "why have you made me thus?" Why aren't I saved as I am, NOT why am I "totally depraved", "non-elect", "passed over for salvation", etc.

 

It is true. I have not ignored you. I simply don't read all this stuff. It is way too much unsupported stuff. I have read enough of your writing to know that it is very creative and very off base. I refuted Eph 1. If you answered me, I didn't see it. I don't know whether you respond or not. Like I say, I don't have time to read all of these posts. I check in from time to time to keep things under control or I check in when I am asked.

No, knowledgeable in terms of able theological theologians. I aksed you to list some authors who agree with you and you ignored that. Chances are, you just don't know any but if you know some put them forth.

No, I am saying that in the life of this thread, you arguments have been refuted ad nauseum. FTR, your use of pronouns is suspect because it springs from your assumption that election must be talking about apostles rather than everyone. That is a weak assumption that is out of place in the contexts of election. 1 Thes 1:4 shows that election applies to "you" meaning people no like Paul, i.e., not apostles.

I know what you said. I am telling you it is off base. rom 9-1 and the hardening is not a factor in depravity.

Who is Jesus speaking to? Israel.
According to Romans 11 all of Israel has been hardened except the Remnant, who have been chosen as special vessels to carry on God's plan of redemption to the world (i.e. Apostles).p[/quote][/qb]That is cleary wrong according to 11:26 because when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, then all Israel will be saved, meaning that the remnant is not simply the apostles. That remnant must exist long after the apostles. John 6:64-65 has Jesus speaking to those in front of them. They are not unable because of their hardening (at least not according to the text; you require an unsuported assumption for that). Nor is their Jewish status given as teh cause. (You again require an unstated assumption which Scripture does not grant). Your explanation of John 6 doesn't stand in with the text.

If you read everything in this forum on John 6 you wil lnot post for a number of days because it will take you that long to read. To call it an unaddressed blind spot will not work. It has been addressed.

Read it ... that is clearly what it says. You are right that it is about the fact that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Those in the flesh are the unsaved as seen by the contrast with those in the Spirit.

Then I would question your ability to interpret any passage of Scripture if you deny this. I cannot see how you deny that Rom 8 is talking about the inability of Gentiles. "Cannot" is a word of ability and it is negative. I believe the words are ou dunatai -- are not able. This means what it says and no amoutn of your wrangling about words will change that.

Though much more can be and has been said in refutation of your bases of argument, this will suffice for me for now. I am urging you Bill, get in the books and the Scripture and work this stuff out. You are off base on this.

 

Brother Bill,

It is difficult to change anyone's belief especially if their pastor was the one to lead them to Christ, or if they have been told that either Arminianism or Calvinism is the truth. Your question was how can we persuade Calvinists not to believe that 'Because Israel can't come, therefore, everyone cannot come to Christ?'

God only 'blinds' [Romans 11:7] the Israelites after He has offered the Gospel to all Israelites. The key to understanding this passage is in Romans 10:21. Is not God reaching out to ALL Israelites? [Romans 10:1] The answer is in the affirmative. God sees in His 'foreknowledge' [Romans 11:1] His elect ones [11:5] as having come to Him.

God's former covenant, the O.T. agreement was and still remains as He being a 'Husband' for every Israelite person. [Isaiah 54:5] and everlasting covenant that will always remain between the Lord and His people Israel. [Isaiah 54:10]

God wishes that all Israelites plus all Gentiles should and can be saved. [Acts 7:51 & John 3:16]

Second question: 'How can we get people to believe that the hardening of Israel is necessary for the grafting in of the Gentiles? {I may not have gotten this statement of yours exactly correct}

The Lord offers to the Israelites throughout all of 'time' the opportunity to accept Him as their true and only Messiah. To date, most are unwilling to see this fact. The flight, if you will, is found in Romans 11:23 and suggests that if the Israelites come out of unbelief, they can be grafted in again as the 'natural branches of the olive tree.' [11:24]

[John 1:11a] shows us that God's sincere desire was to save Israel from Hell, because of His everlasting covenant with the ethnic people we call Israelites. [Isaiah 54:5 & 10]

It is true that God may have hardened some and perhaps even most already because of their continual rejection of Biblical, Gospel truth. This is in His sovereign, eternal intelligence and not ours, but this does not mean, in my mind, that every Israelite cannot come to Jesus and believe in Him.

Although God ordained/allowed the Romans to destroy the Israelite's Temple and to disperse their people out of the homeland, does not mean that they are forever, cut off, as some suggest. Why do I say this? Because of the previous paragraphs before this last one. . .

Best regards!

 

The pastor of the church where I was saved, also married my wife and me...I don't speak to him anymore. You want to talk about a 'blind spot??


Bro. Dallas

 

Second question: 'How can we get people to believe that the hardening of Israel is necessary for the grafting in of the Gentiles? {I may not have gotten this statement of yours exactly correct}


How can you say...this is national...

Also, who purged/grafted?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

It must be uncomfortable for both of you to be married to your pastor.

 

Mr Bill,

Several people HAVE written at length about John 6, John 12, etc. But once again, there's an easy way to demonstrate your argument's lack of merit - simply accept your assumptions and edit the text to reflect them:

Let's have some more fun. One of the Arminian's favorite scriptures is John 12:32, where they interpret "I will draw all men to Myself" as "everyone without exception". Unfortunately, the word translated as "men" does not exist at all in the Greek. So, let's apply Pronounian theology to this passage. Since the immediate audience is the Jews, and there is no word in the Greek to say otherwise, then Jesus must be referring only to the Jews. So the verse should actually read (according to Pronounism):

 

It must be uncomfortable for both of you to be married to your pastor. </font>[/QUOTE]You are correct sir; especially since he now lives and pastors about seventy-five miles from us.

Here we see a flaw from within pronounism.
I confess, I assumed you guys would know my meaning, so I left off after the second pronoun, knowing you could fill in the rest, and BOY HOWDY I WAS RIGHT. But if you would read the context of the post you would readily see that I mean to say that my wife and I are married, I just don't know how you could have missed this truth, it is as plain as the nose on your faces, (wait a minute, the picture you provide of yourself doesn't have a nose, this explains alot.)

Anyway, you must be one of those people who don't believe in questioning your own beliefs, this is evident as is the fact that you are implying my (and my pastors depravity), but you have failed to realize that my wife is also depraved, but since you insist upon seeing things through your tinted lenses I am resolved to continue my incessant pronounism until you no longer ignore me, label me, or dismiss me.

I have to stop here; I am running out of pertinent pronouns with which to pronounce you a heretic.


God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

ROFL

 

1 Cor. 2:14 states that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the natural man (unregenerate) to comprehend the things of the Spirit of God. Period. In no way does Rev. 22:17 prove your point. It merely states that the Spirit and the bride say "Come!" Of course, many from the Calvinistic perspective argue that this particular invitation / call is going to the elect. The reason for this is that it states, "Whoever is THIRSTY, let him come; and whoever WISHES, let him take the free gift of the water freely." You have a long way to go in proving your case regarding 1 Cor. 2:14.

The context of Rom. 8:7-9 clearly disputes your statements.
NIV - "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, NOR CAN IT DO SO. Those controlled by the sinful nature CANNOT PLEASE GOD. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And IF ANYONE DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, HE DOES NOT BELONG TO CHRIST."
To be in the "flesh" (in the context of this passage) is to be unregenerate. One is either unregenerate and unable to please God (sinful mind controlled by the flesh), or a believer who is able to please God(indwelt by the Holy Spirit). Recall that Hebrews states, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Link the two, and it demonstrates that the unregenerate individual does not have faith nor can he have faith (unless granted to him by God).

 

Not to me. What you wrote sounds awkward for two reasons. First, you substituted the phrases based on the assumption that I think the same way you do. I do not believe there is a formula like the one you have presented for Ephesians 1, where all occurrances of "us", "we", etc., must refer to the same group. So you applied my reasoning improperly in your edited text.

Second, you didn't work with the grammar, as I did when I made your substitutions.

Here, I'll show you how to do it right. Since it is my opinion that "everyone" or "all people" is usually implied, you would substitute "all people" where the context does not demand something other than that. When the context infers something else, substitute what is inferred by the context:

Sounds fine to me.

 

John 3:20 - "Everyone who does evil HATES THE LIGHT [CHRIST], and WILL NOT COME TO THE LIGHT [CHRIST] because his deeds are evil."

It certainly says something of depravity and the condition of the unregenerate heart. Here, and in Rom. 8, it declares that the unregenerate / natural man HATES God / is AT WAR with God.

It declares in Rom. 1 that sinners "suppress the truth in unrighteousness," do not "retain God in their knowledge," hate God / are "God-haters," and a multitude of other things. How can one who hates God and who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness suddenly love God and stop suppressing the truth? It definitely takes the work of the Spirit, but it takes much more than the "universal / general call" of which you are speaking.

Well? Who has the blind spot now?
Who is operating on assumptions?
Where is your scriptural support?

 

Dear Sir,
I was not addressing your belief about election to apostolic office, but your belief concerning inability in the matter of salvation. It was no answer simply to do the switcho-chango here, as though I were really addressing the former. As an Arminian you will doubtless hold to the work of the Holy Spirit being exactly what I said it was below... so why not take that issue in hand? As it respects SALVATION you will hold that man can succesfully resist the work of the Holy Spirit, and that as it respects SALVATION that this work is equal to all. So go from there.... where the point was.

As for my second point you merely beg the question, asking me if I can prove scripturally what I had just proven scripturally. "Without me ye can do nothing" IS scripture. If its not proof of that position, then deal with the argument I made directly.

As for your belief that election only respects election to apostleship I can only say that it shows you don't read the bible, or don't care to understand it if you do. It is utterly perspicuous that it teaches that election is to salvation, such as Eph.1:5-7 as I pointed out to you in another string. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redeption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the richeds of his grace". Are you trying to say that this only respects election to apostleship, and not to salvation? I am persuaded that such a claim would only demonstrate a desperation unequal to a sound belief.
g4g

I never said the work of the Spirit to all man is equal, your obviously not fimilar with my position. I believe "effectual calling" and individual "sovereign election" are the means God employed to save and appoint the apostles (the remnant, those of Israel who were not hardened) to a unique and sacred task of carring out the Sovereign plans of ushering in the new Covenant of grace to the world. So, can you find in scripture where the individual salvation by means of "election/effectual calling" apply to the Gentile believers.

I understand you point, since I was once a Calvinist myself, but I disagree. Just because the "general calling" of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit can be refused by man does not mean that Jesus is "with someone" when they refuse the calling as you assert. He does not abide in them until they abide in Him. Their refusal to respond to the gospel's call in no way implies that "Jesus is with them as they do nothing." That is a false conclusion that you apply to my beliefs that are not merited in any way.

You assume that God does not give man the ability to respond. Can you prove scripturally that man is unable to respond to the general call of the gospel to faith and repentance?

BTW, don't quote verses that have to do with Israel's inablity to respond because remember they are being Hardened and the gospel is "veiled" to them as Romans 11 teaches us. (Only the remnant of Israel will be saved, the rest will be hardened) You have to find texts that clearly have Gentiles in focus in order to prove man's inability to respond to the gospel. Good luck.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Excellent point. But I see a crack in the grammar that might let someone interpret John 3:20 as less than everyone. So let me pount one more nail into the not-quite-depraved-world coffin.

This is the same "world" that "god so loved", so Arminians who lean on 3:18 have no excuses about how this is not the WHOLE world. This same "world" hates Jesus because He testifies that its works are evil.

This confirms Rev G's interpretation of John 3:20, that the WHOLE world will not come into the light because its deeds are evil.