CALVINISM'S TEACHING OF TOTAL INABILITY IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

[William C]

Just those three simple question. Its very simple I'll list them again for you, I can't find anyone else's response ....please......please....if you could see me I'm on my knees in front of my computer begging you to just answer this one thing...(i'm getting weird looks from my dog)

Please answer these three simple yes or no questions:
1. According to Acts 28; can someone who has been hardened hear the things of God?
2. According to Acts 28; can Israel hear the the things of God?
3. Accoring to Acts 28:28; can the Gentiles hear the things of God?

Even if I disagree with you response I'll be nice, I promise, I just want one person to actually address this without just trying to redefine what "akouo" means or telling me I have to prove a negative. Just answer these three simple little questions. PLEASE!

Bill

 

[Rev. G]

"Saying, 'Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive."
- Acts 28:26

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."
- Acts 28:28

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Rev. G:
"Saying, 'Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive."
- Acts 28:26

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."
- Acts 28:28

Yes, look at the contrast, the Israelites will hear it but not listen. The Gentiles will listen (which is a common translation of this text by many scholars) Why? because of the contrasting. The Calvinistic view doesn't make any sense to say, "Israel heard but did not perceive, but the Gentiles will hear! (oh, btw they can't perceive it either because they are hardened just like Israel) That's nuts!!!

I'm tired, goodnight

 

[Frogman]

Tell your dog I said hello. BTW, you haven't seen 'em, but I have given you some wierd looks also.

most of the ones found above, not at the same time, but at intervals.

I have also

and

to no avail.
Trying to change Bro. Bill, Does he listen,
No Not to my words Why he thinks my arguments are for the birds

God Bless ya brother.
Bro. Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Again, Bill, you are arguing from silence, as I said earlier:

Bill's theologies are based on the debate technique "arguing from silence". Put simply, the Bible does not say X, therefore Y must be true. It's a fallacious argument, but it is difficult to refute because it is based on the absence of contradictory evidence, not the presence of supporting evidence.

Actually, what you are doing is more disingenuous than that. The verse says the Gentiles will hear, not that the Gentiles will listen. Regardless, the verse does not say that ALL Gentiles will hear, nor does it say HOW the Gentiles hear, or what or Who enables them to hear.

We have provided several verses that explain exactly how one hears.

In contrast, you have not provided a single verse that says Gentiles are able to hear and respond to the Gospel of their own free will.

So your whole point rests on an argument from silence: It doesn't specifically say that the Gentiles are hardened, therefore they must be able to hear of their own free will.

This is exactly the game that governed your hypothesis of pronounism. It doesn't say that non-apostles and non-prophets are saved the same way as the apostles, therefore they aren't saved the same way.

Given your methodology, I'm not sure why I or anyone else even bothers to debate you on these topics.

 

[Brutus]

Third:Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.Picking up on the term "flesh" (man apart from the grace of God)in my previous post,we find Paul declaring it to be totally enslaved to rebellion.Rom.8:7-8 says,"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God;it does not submit to God's law,indeed it cannot;and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."The "mind of the flesh" is the mind of man apart from the indwelling Spirit of God("you are not in the flesh,you are in the Spirit,if the Spirit of God really dwells in you."Rom.8:9)So the natural man has a mindset that does not and cannot submit to God.Man cannot reform himself.Eph.2:1 says that we Christians were all once "dead in trespasses and sins."The point of deadness is that we were incapable of any life with God.Our hearts were like a stone toward God(Eph.4:18;Ez.36:26).Our hearts were blind and incapable of seeing the glory of God in Christ(2Cor.4:4-6).We were totally unable to reform ourselves.

 

[William C]

So based on the responses to my arguments, as if anyone has really addressed them, I'm guessing that this is how Calvinist's interpret this passage, I've added the Calvinistic meanings in the verse below in parentheses (please tell me if I misrepresent you):

Act 28:24 And some were convinced by what he said, while others disbelieved (those that disbelieve did so because they were hardened, while the other's who were "convinced" were not hardened.)
Act 28:25 So, as they disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had made one statement: "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
Act 28:26 'Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. ("this people" means "Israel" in this text but we should also believe it to mean all people)
Act 28:27 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; otherwise they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'(if they weren't hardened they might perceive with their eyes, hear, understand and turn to be healed, but everyone is hardened so this would never happen without God removing the "hardening" from them first.)
Act 28:28 Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will hear." (The Gentiles will hear but not percieve either because they are hardened just like Israel, so Paul is merely saying that it's the Gentiles turn to rebell against God's genine call of the gospel.)

Is this an accurate interpretation of what Calvinists think this verse is saying?

Thanks,
Bill

 

[sturgman]

What is funny is that you are asking me to prove a negative as well. You want me to prove that the gentiles are hardened when you said that cannot be proved, yet you cannot prove that they are hardened. "Hi pot, this is kettle, your black"

Second, I did address you position, but you chose to focus outside of that. Let me spell it out.

1. Israel is hardened. (we both know that)

2. Neither of us can prove with detailed text that gentiles are not hardened. (Ibelieve they are based upon the fact that all men are in the same boat, and we have proof that God has hardened at least one gentile, that being pharoh)

3. If your statement is true then all gnetiles would be able to hear, and that is not true. Some gentiles hear, yes, some jews will also be able to hear. So you admit that there is a remnant of Jews, but you think all of the gentiles have free will. Yet you believe this with no scriptural evidence. You want me to prove otherwise, THAT THE GENTILES DON"T HAVE THE ABILITY TO HEAR, is this not asking me to prove a negative? Isn't that what you called unfair? Now bro Bill, that is not a nice thing to do, to throw a negative at me and ask me to prove it.

Now like I said, the BEST you can hope for for this arguement is to make it a moot point, like Ephesians. Yet you believe you have us backed agaist a theological wall. I stand that these are just tricky debate techniques. You are asking us to prove arguements that cannot be proven while staying away from arguements that can be proven. Are you a lawyer? let us focus on what the arguement really is.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
What is funny is that you are asking me to prove a negative as well. You want me to prove that the gentiles are hardened when you said that cannot be proved, yet you cannot prove that they are hardened. "Hi pot, this is kettle, your black"

There is a simple difference that you obviously refuse to see. Scripture says, "Israel is hardened and they cannot hear." It does not say that the Gentiles are hardened, in fact it says "they will hear." And Romans 11:25 has been ignored once again, which clearly says that hardening is a temporary process. So, I have provided support for my claims, I'm still waiting for your support.

1. Israel is hardened. (we both know that)

Why do we both know this? SCRIPTURE SAYS SO! You assume that it must also apply to Gentiles, eventhough Gentiles are contrasted with Hardened Israelites in Acts, Matt, and Romans.

2. Neither of us can prove with detailed text that gentiles are not hardened. (Ibelieve they are based upon the fact that all men are in the same boat, and we have proof that God has hardened at least one gentile, that being pharoh)

No, your right there is no "detailed" verse, but there a several verses that if understood by any reasonable reader would see that Gentiles are contrasted with Hardened Israel. You still ignore these texts.

Also, the fact that scripture spells out Pharoah's hardening actually supports my view. If everone was hardened, why specify the hardening of a particular person who is used to accomplish a specific purpose? The fact that he singles out Pharoah supports the fact that his hardening was unique to him.

If I were a teacher in a class and I said, "There is a student in my class who is a trouble maker, his is always disturbing my class and his grades are horrible." Would you naturally assume that everyone in the class was a trouble maker and disturbing, or that this student was uniquely bad? Also, what if a teacher said, "My first class won't listen to a word I say, I'm not even going to bother trying to teach them anymore, I going to focus on my second period class because they will listen!" Would you naturally assume that the second period class is as bad as the first period class?

Only if you were trying to avoid a contradiction in your system of belief!!!!

3. If your statement is true then all gentiles would be able to hear, and that is not true. Some gentiles hear, yes, some jews will also be able to hear. So you admit that there is a remnant of Jews, but you think all of the gentiles have free will.

"The will hear!" That's what Paul says, not me. I never said that all will respond postively to what they hear, but they will hear, which is better than the hardened Israel who are deafened by the hardening. The remnant, who are not hardened, are not hardened for a specific purpose.

HERE IS YOU FALACY:
You obviously believe that the "Remnant" were hardened too. For the same reason that you must believe that Gentiles are hardened. They are "natural man" who are under the Fall of man and the sin nature, right? So, for your Calvinistic system to remain intact you must believe that everyman is hardened, even the Remnant.

Oh no, will you looky at Roman's 11:7, it contradicts that view:

Rom 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, AND THE REST WERE HARDENED

So, obviously the view that everyone is "hardened" by the fall is not supported here! It specifically says "The rest were hardened" meaning the the Remnant were NOT.

ONLY "THE REST" WERE HARDENED!

THIS DISPROVES THE CALVINISTIC ASSUMPTION THAT ALL MEN ARE HARDENED BY THE FALL!

Timberrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
There is a simple difference that you obviously refuse to see. Scripture says, "Israel is hardened and they cannot hear." It does not say that the Gentiles are hardened, in fact it says "they will hear." And Romans 11:25 has been ignored once again, which clearly says that hardening is a temporary process. So, I have provided support for my claims, I'm still waiting for your support.

And we're all still waiting for you to present something of substance. What you're saying above is exactly what I described. Your argument is build entirely on logical fallacies, the most obvious of which is arguing from silence, and you manage to squeeze TWO instances of arguing from silence into the same conclusion!! (That takes real talent, by the way.)

Here's the fallacy:

"It does not say X, therefore Y is true."

Here's what you say ad nauseum:

"It does not say that hardening and the inability to respond to the Gospel are NOT the same thing, so they must be the same thing and therefore applies only to Israel."

"It does not say the Gentiles are hardened, therefore they had free will to accept the Gospel."

So you argue from what the Bible does not say, and then fail to present a single scripture that clearly states any of the following:

1. That Biblical references to "hardening" are the 1-for-1 equivalent to the state of inability to respond to the Gospel without the Spirit.

2. That because the Gentiles would hear the Gospel, that means they had the innate ability to respond of their own free will.

What's the point in discussing anything with you when you never present anything of substance?

 

[William C]

Npety,

Was the remnant hardened?

 

[William C]

Nepty,

How do you define "total inability" if it is not "the inability to peceive, understand and turn to God?"
(I'm on my way out the door to visit the inlaws, see yall Sunday)

 

[sturgman]

That is the same thing I was trying to say. It is faulty debate techniques.

In your line of thinking brother Bill, the gentiles have free will when it comes to being in there sin nature, then they are slaves to righteousness, and once they "choose" God then they can never turn away from God therefore have no free will. Then the Jews being in a completely different boat have no free will at all because their forefathers messed up. Therefore they cannot choose God and have no free will. Then you have the remnant who also does not have free will because they must choose God. That is a lot of conclustions to pull from one verse in Acts. Especially since you provided no links from the hardening of Israel to the inability of man.

Again, if you cannot see the faulty logic in your own debate, there is no hope of answering your question. And therefore, I will never hear you genius explanation of free will. And I was looking forward to that.


TIMMMBERRRRRR.............. yeah right, how arrogant, try again my friend.

 

[npetreley]

Do you see those items numbered 1 and 2 in my last post? Give us scripture that clearly states these, and it will be worthwhile debating the issue. But I'm not so stupid as to waste my time on your logical fallacies.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:

1. That Biblical references to "hardening" are the 1-for-1 equivalent to the state of inability to respond to the Gospel without the Spirit.

First, I don't believe one can respond to the Gospel without the Spirit, I believe the Spirit like the gospel has a genuine universal call to all, which is the means God has chosen to call men to faith and repentance. Unlike you, I actually believe this call is geniune and sufficent to have its intended effect on man.

Second, the Calvinist is the one who gives us the defination of "Total Inability" and you must admit it sounds a lot like "Hardening." As a matter of fact, no one on this board has contradicted that thus far. Let me repost the definations of total inability and hardening as I presented in the first post and you tell me how it differs from Calvinism's definations:

Posted by Bro. Bill:
What does Calvinism’s Total Depravity teach about man?
Answer: That man is so sinful they are unable to see, hear, understand or receive the things of God. Right?

That’s the same definition as “hardening” in scripture: Look at these verses: Romans 10 and 11; Acts 28:25-28; John 12:37-41; Matt. 21:42-43 (to name a few)

No one has taken issue with this definition yet, are you? If so, why?

Npetreley posted:
2. That because the Gentiles would hear the Gospel, that means they had the innate ability to respond of their own free will.

I have alread made this argument but I'll make it again for you (because I like you so much

)

Israel cannot hear because they are deafened by the hardening. That's a fact. Do you disagree?

Paul specifically says Gentiles will hear therefore it is reasonable to interpret Paul's words in Acts 28:28 to mean that the Gentiles are not hardened in the way that the Israelites are. Because of this we can see the ability of men who are not hardened in this very text:

otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear (akouo) with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted--and I would heal them.'

NEPTY IT SAYS "OTHERWISE." In other words, if the hardening was not in effect they would have the ability to see, hear, understand and be converted.

We already know Israel won't hear but the Gentiles will. That is significant and you won't address it.

Plus, I'll add all of the passages that have caused centuries of debate among Arminians and Calvinists. Those passages that obviously seem to leave the response of faith within man's responsiblity.

Calvinist even admit that people are "born" Arminian. Why? Because the natural rendering of the text leads one to believe they have a choice to make. Calvinist are also known for saying that these doctrines are for the mature believers, not the lost. Why? Because such teachings would lead one to believe that man is not responsible for his response.

The disciples clearly call people to repent and believe as if they actually have the ability to do just that, to assume otherwise is absurd unless you have been duped by Calvinistic logic for some period of time. It is a natural rendering of the text to believe that we have the ability to respond to a geniune call, it is only through the dogma of Calvinism that people come to believe otherwise.

The strength of this dogma, IMO, is based primarily upon John chapter 6 in which Jesus has Israel as his audience.

Within Israel there are those who are hardened and those who are not. That is very significant in understanding Jesus' teaching. Do you disagree?

What's the point in discussing anything with you when you never present anything of substance?

I've noticed you've disagreed with my interpretation of Acts 28 but you have never offered an interpretation of your own. That's what I call a "lack of substance."

Could one of you please do that for me?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
1. That Biblical references to "hardening" are the 1-for-1 equivalent to the state of inability to respond to the Gospel without the Spirit.

...Second, the Calvinist is the one who gives us the defination of "Total Inability" and you must admit it sounds a lot like "Hardening." As a matter of fact, no one on this board has contradicted that thus far.</font>[/QUOTE]Saying that it sounds like what Calvinists call TD, and saying nobody has contradicted it is once again what you do best -- arguing from the perspective of logical fallacies.

So I'll ask you once again...

Produce scripture that says "hardening" is THE definition of the inability to respond to the Gospel -- not ONE way God causes people to be unable to respond but THE way, and the two concepts are 1-for-1 synonymous.

Until then, you haven't even provided scriptural support for the first part of your first premise, rendering all the rest meaningless.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:

Produce scripture that says "hardening" is THE definition of the inability to respond to the Gospel -- not ONE way God causes people to be unable to respond but THE way, and the two concepts are 1-for-1 synonymous.

So, now you are saying that "hardening" is just one of the ways God causes people to be unable to respond? There are two diffenent types of hardening now? Where is YOUR scriptural support for that. You ask for my support, I give it, you ignore it, and won't give me any support for your claims? Come on. Where is the beef!

Are you saying, contrayery to other Calvinists (like Sturgman and Dallas), that Total Inability is not "hardening." It's like pulling teeth to get you to clearly state what it is you believe concerning hardening and Calvinisms teaching of Total Inability. Thus far other Calvinist have equated them and have attempted to show that the Gentiles are hardened too. You seem to be pulling away from that stance by saying that "hardening" is different from Calvinism's teaching of Total inability. Am I correct? I can't debate someone who hasn't established any kind of stance on the issue especially when it contradicts other Calvinists on this board.

Until then, you haven't even provided scriptural support for the first part of your first premise, rendering all the rest meaningless.

Nepty, you are something. You still haven't offered any intepretation of Act 28 except to say that "hear" doesn't mean "listen." Which, in response I showed you 5 different translations that disagreed and proof the the word "akouo" does mean "listen" in other similar contexts. You never responded, except to say, "I don't care, make it say whatever you want." Sounds like someone who doesn't know how to answer the argument to me.

If my argument has no substance then it should be very simple for you to give me an interpretation of Acts 28.

You say that I don't have any substance, but you haven't even provided a basic interpretation for the text that I'm basing my arguments off of. That is no substance!

At least when we debated Eph. 1 you gave me some substance by giving me your interpretation of a text. You won't do that now because you know it contradicts your views.

Stop asking me to do what I've already done while you continually avoid to meet your own demands.

 

[The Archangel]

Hello All! I am new to this board but I have been watching for some time. Please allow me to put my 2 cents in on the whole Calvinism debate.

Most of us make many mistakes when we discuss our salvation. However, there are certain certainties that must be taken into account.

The preeminence of the cross should be the primary concern. It is my contention that all 5 points of Calvinism relate to the cross. Similarly, I believe that all 5 points are necessary to understand what, exactly, God did for us at the cross.

If, however, you are an Arminian, I am not necessarily picking a fight with you. The common denominator between a Calvinist and an Arminian is Faith in Christ's death on the cross to secure our salvation. In fact, I have said before that one should believe like a Calvinist and "do" ministry like an Arminian--as if it all depended on you.

When approaching the ideas of "Particular Redemption," "Total Depravity" (I guess some here have been calling it total inability?), "Perseverance," "Unconditional Election," and "Irresistable Grace," one must ask this question: What exactly was accomplished on the Cross?

If, as the Arminian contends, the Cross secured the ability to be saved for all, then it did not actually save anyone. If, as the Calvinist contends, Christ died to save some, then some were definatly saved.

Why does this one point matter so much? Simple. It relates to how God deals with sin. That leaves us with this simple problem:
1. Did God actually punish sin in the person of Christ on the Cross. Yes. And I think the Calvinists and Arminians can agree on that.

2. If God actually punished the sin of all mankind (past, present, future...) Then for God to condemn anyone to hell would be unjust. If it is a general redemption, then the sin and guilt and wrath of everyone has been paid for. At this point, the Arminian (with some exceptions) would not agree in a universal salvation. Neither would the Calvinist.

3. If God actually punished the sins of some, the elect, in the person of Christ on the cross then, those people will be saved. There is no wrath, judgement, etc. to be poured out on those people--Christ was our propitiation. He bore the wrath of God meant for us.

4. If the doctrine of Particular or Limited atonement is correct, which I believe it is, then the Calvinist platform must be correct in its view of the scripture and how God's economy works. Therefore, all the "Doctrines of Grace" flow from what Christ did on the Cross.

In a reality, God does not "forgive" sin. He requires a payment for it. This is the reason we are all in need of a savior. That payment was poured out on Christ, in our place.

Therefore, brothers, we are left to two opions: Particular redemption or universalism. We all know that universalism is a wrong and heretical road. That leaves us with a Particular Atonement which purchased every grace that we have from God. The ability to believe is from here to. But, that will be for another post.

Blessings,

Archangel

Ps. I'm sure that this will spark discussion--I hope so. Hopefully, we can all have fun making our minds work to understand the un-understandibility of God.

 

[The Archangel]

On Total Inability

Ya know....I think Romans 3:10 and following sums it up the best.

"as it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;"

I don't know....That seems pretty air-tight to me. I think the Apostle Paul gets it.

Another good point is Ephesians 2:1 where Paul writes, "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins."

I don't know about you...but I've never seen a dead man do anything...He can't walk, talk, breathe, think, etc. A dead man can do nothing. That is why it must be the case that regeneration preceeds redemption. God brings the spiritually dead heart back to life and then the heart is able to choose faith in Christ.

This is by no means deterministic, per se. However, it is compatibilistic. That is to say that God ordains the free choices of humans. That is why Joseph can say to his brothers, "What you intended for evil, God intended for good."

It is still our choice to believe in Christ. However, it is God that gives us the ability to choose.

I feel like I'm rambling......Sorry!

More Later,

Blessings

Archangel

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
Therefore, brothers, we are left to two opions: Particular redemption or universalism. We all know that universalism is a wrong and heretical road. That leaves us with a Particular Atonement which purchased every grace that we have from God. The ability to believe is from here to. But, that will be for another post.

Archangel, welcome to the board. I do wished you would have posted this message under the topic "We Don't Limit Atonement" because it is a very difficult task to get these Calvinists to respond to my arguments even when there are no distractions

But to answer your questions there are apprently a couple of different ways to look at the atonement.

1. Like you describe from the Calvinistic perspective

2. Many Arminians simply say that God knew in advance who would believe and Christ died for them. Others explain it by saying that Christ atoning work is "eternal" in that it was accomplished even before the foundation of the world as scripture teaches and therefore atonement can be applied to individuals as they express faith in Christ.

3. Yelsew seems to support a view I hadn't really ever considered before, which is that Christ atoned for all sins except for the sin of unbelief. So, when we are judged before God we will be condemned based upon our sin of unbelief and not necessarily our sins of the flesh. (Yelsew, please correct me if I've miss stated your view)

To me personally, I don't see the crux of the debate on the issue of "limited atonement" simply because we all agree, unless we are universalist, that it will only be applied to some (in whatever way). When and how it is applied can get sticky, but I think the real central crux of the debate lies in the ability and responsiblity of man to respond to the general calling of the Holy Spirit through the presentation of the gospel.

Calvinisms teaching of "Total Inability" is the foundation of it's entire system of Soteriology.

Total inablity necessitates "effectual call" (also called irrestible grace)because, the Calvinist reasons that if man in unable to respond to God's general call of the gospel their must be a more powerful calling that is "irrestible." And "Effectual calling" necessitates "unconditional election" of individuals as God must determine what individuals will receive that calling and what individuals will be left to face eternal torment for something they had absolutely no control over. It's all a domino effect. Even Calvinist say that the five points hang or fall together.

I believe the debate on this tread that I've presented concerning the hardening of Israel undercuts Calvinism's premise of "Total Inability." Calvinists on this board obviously disagree but have refused to offer me their interpretation of Act 28:25-28.

Go back and read through my arguments and maybe you can provide a bit more substance than the other Calvinists on this board have thus far.

Thanks,
Bill