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