CALVINISM'S BLIND SPOT

[sturgman]

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.

 

[Frogman]

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

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

I showed your assumptions to be flawed in Ephesians 1. I believe I responded to several other posts. Others have as well. But you continue anyway.Leighton:
So, I will confirm the point that Shawn points out in his post. God still speaks, but He doesn't contradict himself.

Read back through the START OVER thread. You say you disagree with my assumption and you refer to a couple of commentators who say that the pronouns are in reference to time of salvation or Jews and Gentiles. The commentators who say that it could be Jews and Gentiles would be supporting my view because the Remnant were Jews, who were not hardended but elected to carry out God's plan of redemption to the world. You never address my response there. And I can go back and show you of at least two other threads that you pop in and say something but never return to answer my rebuttal. Now, you say that you have refuted my arguments? Tell me the time and place of the posts where you actually "handle" my arguments without merely just saying, "That's an unsupported assumption." I can say the same thing about your assumptions in this regard.

If you don't consider my arguments valid at least show me enough respect to tell me why they are not valid scripturally. I have done that for you in every post you have presented, most of which you have simply ignored....revealing.

I have responded; I have no seen any of your responses to me except this one. I haven't ignored anything.</font>

That is simply not true. I've named one post that I know you haven't responded. You could also look at the topic "Calvinism is based upon an Assumption" in which you say, something like, You just don't like where Calvinism leads so you feel like you have to change the reverant. I respond to you there and no reply. Can you name one post in which I have not replied to you?

It's a ploy to avoid arguments that you don't know how to handle without having to actually think for a change. Your "pat answers" don't work on me so you just label me and dismiss me. It's easier that way I guess.

Not at all. I am telling you that the avenue you are going down is not one that knowledgeable people go down.

Knowledgeable by your standards maybe. Just because it's new to you, doesn't mean it's new!

They have been refuted a number of times. Read the board. I don't have time to keep reposting the same stuff. It is easy to waste a lot of time with people who have no interest in learning. I don't have that kind of time.

Refuted? Dallas is the only one in this post who has really attempted to answer at least one of my questions and he said Paul may have been using a cliche that just sounded good. You call that refuting an argument? Npetreley is about the only one who even attempted to answer my argument concerning Eph. 1:9 in light of Eph. 3:1-7 and he basically dismissed my arguments because they "depending upon the use of pronouns." He now just makes fun of my posts my saying "there he goes again with the Pronouns." You call that refuting? Come on!!!

Back to the point, you use Rom 9-11 to disprove Total Depravity when Total Depravity is clearly based outside of Romans 9-11. I have not seen many (if any) use Rom 9-11 to argue for total depravity.

This proves you haven't even read my argument! I did not say that Calvinists base total depravity on these passages, I say they ignore the teachings concerning hardening in these passages when they read other passages such as the ones you refer to. Let me demonstate what I mean:

John 6:64 says "you cannot come" -- that is a word of ability.

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). So when Jesus is speaking about inability, he is referring to Israel's "inability" or "hardeneding." The Remnant (which includes the Apostles) have not been hardened and the message has not been veiled to them as it has the rest of Israel. They have been "given to by the Father to the Son" and have been "enabled" to come to Christ during this unique period of Hardening.

If you read the passage in its entireity this can be clearly seen as Jesus even goes on to speak to his apostles about his chosing them in verse 70. Most study bibles, even those edited by Calvinist, title John 6:41-59 under the title "Rejected by His Own." This passage clearly has the Hardening of Israel in focus as is God's plan for the ingrafting of the Gentiles after the coming of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, to use this passage as a basis for "Total Inablity" and a foundation for the Soteriology of all mankind is the Calvinistic "blind spot" to which I was referring, which no one has addressed to this point.

Rom 8:5-8 says twice "you cannot come/are unable to do so" -- that is a word of a ability and has nothing to do with Jews. It deals with all kinds of people.

This passage is merely discussing the fact that one cannot PLEASE God in the flesh. It says nothing about his inability to responsed to God's geniune call to faith and repentance. You must bring that assumption to this text. Where does it say that "you cannot come/are unable to do so" in this passage? It does not. It only says that those in the flesh cannot please God. We all agree that the lost cannot please God. Its only those who have responded to the call of repentance and faith who can please God because "he desires that all men come to repentance."

Rom 3:10-12 say "no one understands/no one seeks" and expressly makes it Jews and Gentiles.

Once again this is not addressing one "inability" to come or respond to the geniune call of the gospel. It merely teaches that all are sinners, don't understand God, and don't seek after Him. Is not Christ's work on the cross and his institution of the Church through the working of his divinly sent Apostles who are commissioned to preach the word by the power of the Spirit to the whole world the way in which God "seeks and saves that which is lost." He seeks them out with the UNIVERSAL calling of the gospel and the GENIUNE call of the Holy Spirit to all mankind. On their own, man would not seek or understand which is why God sent Christ , Apostles and His Holy Spirit. Nothing is said in this passage of their inability to respond the the calling of these three divinely appointed messengers.

This is also why Paul in verse 21 says, "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed." Before this righteousness was revealed Romans 3:9-18 reflects our condition, but does not reflect our "inability" to respond to the geniune call to grace as you assume.

These passages clearly teach what you wish to deny.

No, I've made it quite clear that you are the one who is assumming that these passages say something they never say. Not one of these passages speak about the Gentiles inability to respond to God's calling through the power of the gospel.

Where do you get the support for all of mankind's inablity to respond to God's geniune call throught the power of the Gospel?
It is not in the scripture and it is the foundation for the entire Calvinistic system. It has no foundation without John 6 and that passage doesn't even consider the Gentiles. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, had not even been called when John 6 occured, therefore your proof texts doesn't even stand with the understanding of scriptures teaching concerning the Hardening of Israel.

 

[Eric B]

Back to the point, you use Rom 9-11 to disprove Total Depravity when Total Depravity is clearly based outside of Romans 9-11. I have not seen many (if any) use Rom 9-11 to argue for total depravity.
My point here is that Rom 9-11 has nothing to do with the issue. That passage addresses why God can do what he wants to do. He doesn't need our permission.

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.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:

"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.

Yes, he does desire for his fellow brothers to come. Why? Because they have been hardened according to chapter 11 and other passages thoughout the text. Which sheds some light on John 6, which is the foundational passage for Calvinisms teaching of "Total Inability." Jesus was speaking to Israel which include the Remnant and Hardened Israel. No wonder Jesus said you can't come to be unless it has been enabled by the Father. Only the Remnant were not hardened. WHY? They were chosen for a special purpose which was "predestined" before the world began! Thus they were "predestined" and "elected before the foundation of the world" and "set apart from birth" etc etc etc, so that this ultimate purpose of God would be fulfilled.

Calvinism has no foundation if it cannot support "Total Inability" and John 6 cannot be used as a support for "Total Inablity" for all mankind in the light of Paul's and Christ's teaching on the unique Hardening of Israel.

As to your argument concerning "envy" let me just restate what Paul says, "I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may PROVOKE TO ENVY those who are my flesh and SAVE SOME OF THEM." Let's take out that middle part for clarity: "PROVOKE TO ENVY AND SAVE SOME OF THEM." How does ENVY (or Jealousy) not play any role in salvation for Israel and this text still be inspired by God? You are contradicting the clear teaching of scripture, because it clearly states that envy provokes so that they might be saved.

Your argument seems to equate this with Paul's statement in 9:2 in which Paul expresses an impossibilty because of his desire to see his brethern saved. Therefore, you conclude that Paul once again is expressing a mere desire, not something that is really going to happen. I see your point, but it doesn't hold water. Why? Paul in Romans 9:2 was expressing his desire, but in 11:14 is much more than his mere desire. How do I know? He is referring to the words of God in Deut. 32:21 which he already quoted in this passage (Rom. 10:19).

Who provokes Israel to envy (or jealousy) and anger? God does, through Paul and the other Remnant preaching to the Gentiles. Why? To "save some of them. For if their being cast away [hardened] is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"...then Paul goes on to explain how those of Israel who might be provoked to anger and jealousy might be "grafted back in to the root." To compare 9:2 to this passage is not a good comparison because God never said through scripture that Paul could be cut off of for the sake of his brethern. God does say that he will provoke Israel to wrath. Paul tells us why. THIS IS NOT PAUL'S EXPRESSION OF SOME IMPOSSIBLE DESIRE, IT IS APART OF GOD'S ETERNAL PLAN.

This is Christianity, not Amway.

You're right Amway costs you money if you want to buy it. Grace is a free gift of God to all you have faith in his Son, Jesus Christ. Please don't characterize my view of the geniune call to faith and repentance as some kind of "sales tactic" because you assume all man are unable to respond to the general calling of the Holy Spirit through the power of the gospel. There are many "characterizations" of Calvinism that I know you would not appreciate, so lets just stick to the scriptures.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

[ February 16, 2003, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
That is simply not true. I've named one post that I know you haven't responded. You could also look at the topic "Calvinism is based upon an Assumption" in which you say, something like, You just don't like where Calvinism leads so you feel like you have to change the reverant. I respond to you there and no reply. Can you name one post in which I have not replied to you?

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.

Knowledgeable by your standards maybe. Just because it's new to you, doesn't mean it's new!

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.

Refuted? Dallas is the only one in this post who has really attempted to answer at least one of my questions and he said Paul may have been using a cliche that just sounded good. You call that refuting an argument?

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 did not say that Calvinists base total depravity on these passages, I say they ignore the teachings concerning hardening in these passages when they read other passages such as the ones you refer to. Let me demonstate what I mean:

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.

John 6:64 says "you cannot come" -- that is a word of ability.

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.

Therefore, to use this passage as a basis for "Total Inablity" and a foundation for the Soteriology of all mankind is the Calvinistic "blind spot" to which I was referring, which no one has addressed to this point.

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.

This passage is merely discussing the fact that one cannot PLEASE God in the flesh. It says nothing about his inability to responsed to God's geniune call to faith and repentance. You must bring that assumption to this text. Where does it say that "you cannot come/are unable to do so" in this passage? It does not.

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.

... I've made it quite clear that you are the one who is assumming that these passages say something they never say. Not one of these passages speak about the Gentiles inability to respond to God's calling through the power of the gospel.

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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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!

 

[Frogman]

It is difficult to change anyone's belief especially if their pastor was the one to lead them to Christ,

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

 

[Frogman]

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

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Frogman:
The pastor of the church where I was saved, also married my wife and me...

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

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

As I have stated, I refuse to muddle the debate with "uninspired" authors who will simply divert the attention away from the scripture. Christians history has shown us one clear truth. No one is perfect. As soon as at system of belief is attached to a person it immediately becomes undermined because of the mistakes of that particular person. Calvinism and John Calvin are perfect examples of that. Though there are many others who support my views, I want to stick to Jesus, and the apostles as my source of authority, if you don't mind.

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.

And you're ignoring of pronouns is suspect because your assumption that election of individauls must be in reference to the Gentiles rather than the Apostles is not supported in the scriptures.

I Thess. 1:4 states: "Knowing, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you..." You is obiously plural in reference to brothers, who are primarily Gentiles in Thessalonica. Th main issue of the day is the Gentiles being chosen to receive entrance into the Covenant of Grace through faith. So this passage is merely Paul stating to a Gentile crowd, God has chosen you (the Gentiles) to receive this message... There is no support for individuals being chosen to the neglect of others as you assume.

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.

How can you say that Hardening is not a factor in depravity? That's just nonsence. Israel's depravity is what lead to their being Hardened by God and knowing this is important in understanding how Jesus addresses the Israel audience.

Pastor, honestly, you don't think that knowing Jesus' audience is uniquly hardened might affect the way you would interpret his teachings concerning their ability or inability to recieve His message? Come now Pastor, you know that would make a huge difference in understanding the text.

John 6:64 says "you cannot come" -- that is a word of ability.

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)

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.</font>[/QUOTE][/qb] I did not mean by this that the Apostles were the full number of the Remnant, only that they were some of the uniquely chosen ones from the Remnant who were not hardened as the rest were. Sorry I was not clear about that. The term (ie) refers to an example of the Remnant.

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.

Really? Verse 31 states: "Our forefathers ate the manna..." so we do know his audience are Jews. Correct? So if we allow scripture to interpret scripture we can clearly see that it is the Jews who are hardened. Correct? Or are you denying that truth simply because John doesn't mention it?

What about John 12:37 which is in context of this passage don't you think?

It states:
"Even after Jesus had done all these miraclous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: 'Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' For this reason they could not believe, because as Isaiah says elsewhere: 'He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

Oh no, Pastor. Calvinists have been saying for years that the reason Jesus' audience doesn't believe is because they are not "chosen," but that's not really the reason at all, is it? According to this verse it is because they are blinded or "hardened" by God. Which according to Paul, in Romans 11, is unique to Israel.

If this "hardening" is unique to Israel then whatever this verse says about those who are "hardened" must be the opposite for those are not hardened. Well, lets see what is says:

Israel is blinded-------the Gentiles (along with the Remnant) are not.
Israel's heart are deadened--------the Gentile's hearts are not.

Pastor, you assume that what is true of Hardened Israel must be true of all mankind. THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED IN SCRIPTURE.

In fact Acts 28:28 says just the opposite, Paul says, "the Gentiles will listen" in comparison to the "blinded nation of Israel."

Also, another point I just noticed in this passage. Some of the Jews (the Remnant) did believe in Jesus (Jn. 12:42) John 7:31 clearly states that "many in the crowd put their faith in him." Here is my question about that. Calvinist teach that the Holy Spirit must indwell a person before they can have faith, but it is clear in John 7:37-39 that the Holy Spirit had not been received by those who believed yet. Isn't this a contradiction? How did the people who were listening to Jesus have faith without the indwelling of the Spirit?

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.

I would love to read the post that has addressed the hardening of Israel in light of John 6. Could you direct me to where I could find that one? Even you say my argument is "new," now you want me to believe that one of you has already addressed my arguments? Which is it Pastor, is it a new argument to you or an old one that has been addressed? You seemed to be confused.

This passage is merely discussing the fact that one cannot PLEASE God in the flesh. It says nothing about his inability to responsed to God's geniune call to faith and repentance. You must bring that assumption to this text. Where does it say that "you cannot come/are unable to do so" in this passage? It does not.

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. [/QUOTE][/qb]
Yes but it never uses the word "cannot" in reference to ones "coming to" or "believing in" or even "recieving" Christ, does it Pastor? It says in the flesh no one can please God. And it says the sinful mind cannot submit to God's law. We all agree with that. Which is why we rejoice in Grace, not the law!!! This verse no more supports your view than 2 Peter 3:9 supports Arminianism. Why? Neither one of them deal with how one is saved but merely the pleasure or delight of God. So, why don't you keep looking for that missing link that you so desprately need to keep your system from tumbling to the ground.

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.

With all due respect to you Pastor, from my vantage point it is you who need to "work this stuff out" since even by your own admission this is "new" to you, which really suprises me considering that you sound as if you're fairly well read. My view is not that difficult to locate in Theological history. If you need that kind of stuff to prop up your view of the scripture and tear down other views then you can keep searching, it is there.

I await your response. God bless.

Bill

 

[npetreley]

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:

63 It is the Spirit who gives life to Jews; the flesh of Jews profits nothing. The words that I speak to you Jews are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you Jews who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning which among the Jews did not believe, and who among the Jews would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you Jews that no one among the Jews can come to Me unless it has been granted to that Jew by My Father."

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):

30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for the sake of Jews. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all Jews to Myself."

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
The pastor of the church where I was saved, also married my wife and me...

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

 

[William C]

Ha Ha Ha, you guys are really funny. It's easy to dismiss someones arguments by making fun of it, isn't it? Ray, do you see how good these guys are at skirting the issues?

Unfortunately, once again you are missing the arguments which is painfully obvious to anyone with any objectivity what so ever.

You wrote: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life to Jews; the flesh of Jews profits nothing. The words that I speak to you Jews are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you Jews who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning which among the Jews did not believe, and who among the Jews would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you Jews that no one among the Jews can come to Me unless it has been granted to that Jew by My Father."

So are you asserting by this that you believe that Jesus was speaking about everyone in this passage? You know that doesn't make much sense either:

But there are some people in the world who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning which among the all the people in the world did not believe, and who among all the people in the world would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to all the people in the world that no one among [b/]among all the people in the world[/b] can come to Me unless it has been granted to all the people in the world by My Father."

No matter what you do, when you take out the pronouns it gonna sound silly.

The argument I am making is a basic hermeneutics. What is the context in which Jesus is speaking? Who is his audience? What issue is he addressing? All of these points you simply ignore by making fun of pronouns as if Calvinist scholars don't address the use of pronouns. You are just revealing your ignorance of linguistic studies by making the types characterizations that you have made concerning pronouns. Any scholar worth his salt looks at the audience and the referant in accordance with the pronouns in order to best determine the author's intent.

You never answer any of the questions Npetreley. Revealing.

How about just answering one of the questions I present in this post.

If Israel is being hardened by God wouldn't he have to "enable" the "remnant" if they are going to believe and be saved as Romans 11 says?

What about John 12:37-41 which clearly teaches that the Jews (except the Remnant) have been hardened and will not "see," "hear" or "understand," but the Gentiles will as we see in Acts 28:28.

How do you deal with them PRONOUNS?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Frogman:
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

 

[Rev. G]

I Cor. 2:14 -- If you would have read my post you would see that I, along with all Arminians, believe that man cannot receive truth unless it is revealed by the Holy Spirit. This revealing or discerning, however can be accomplished through what the "general calling" such as is seen in Rev. 22:17. The Calvinist insist that their must be a second more "effectual" revealing from the Holy Spirit in order to accomplish salvation. This is what is not supported in the text.

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.

Rom. 8:7-9 -- this passage says nothing about a sinful man's "inability" to believe the revelation that is brought by the Holy Spirit through the power of the Gospel. It is merely speaking of those who have the Spirit verses those who are still in the flesh. It does not say man cannot have faith or believe in Christ because of their flesh or their "carnally". It merely says that men cannot please God when they are in the flesh. This is a truth in which we all agree. You must apply your assumption based upon other falsely applied scriptures in order to use these passage as support for your view. It does not stand alone as a support for Calvinism nor Arminianism for that matter. Why? It only addresses a point in which we agree about, it does not address "Man's inability" to respond to God's call.

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).

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
No matter what you do, when you take out the pronouns it gonna sound silly.

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:

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you right here and all people are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some among you right here who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who among them they were who did not believe, and who among them would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you right here that nobody, no matter who can come to Me unless it has been granted to that person by My Father."

Sounds fine to me.

 

[Rev. G]

John 3:18-20 -- Once again this verse cannot stand alone as support for either view. It merely addresses the difference between those who believe and those who don't or between those who practice darkness and those who practice truth. It doesn't address man's inability to respond to God's geniune call to faith and repentance. Also, it could be argued that the "men who loved darkness rather than light" were the men who rejected light. Who rejected Jesus when He was on earth? The Jews. So, this verse COULD be refering to "His people's" rejection or hatred for him because of their hardenness to the things of God. Either way it says nothing in support of "Total Inability."

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.

Romans 1:18-22 -- ...Again this passage says nothing about man's inability to respond to God's geniune call of the gospel. It merely teaches our common doctrine concerning sinfulness of mankind.

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.

Who has the blind spot now? . . .
Assumptions, Assumptions, Assumptions . . .
Where is your scriptural support???

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

 

[grateful4grace]

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

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grateful4grace:
You assume that the work of the Spirit of God toward all men is equal, and that the inequality of effect is owing only to man's inequality of response, making the end result of salvation entirely decided of man. This is to make God elected of man, and yet the bible NEVER speaks once of such an election. Can you show one place in the bible thus employing the word election, or predestination?

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.

You profess to believe that without Jesus sinners can do nothing. But you also believe that with him they can still do nothing. What this shows is that the ability to do something did not ultimately come from Him, but from themselves, the way you are seeing it, and therein lies your denial of the text.

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]

 

[npetreley]

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

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.

John 7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

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.