CALVINISM'S TEACHING OF TOTAL INABILITY IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

[The Archangel]

Bill,

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.

I've heard that too....In fact, I used to believe that. However there are too many problems that render this position incongruous to scripture.

1. If it is foreknowledge and NOT election then, God is "rewarding" us for our choice. In other words, then, salvation is not by grace. In fact, if foreknowledge is right, Salvation is something we earn with our belief. We know that can't be right! Therefore, election is the proper interpretation.

...Christ atoning work is "eternal" in that it was accomplished even before the foundation of the world as scripture teaches...

The problem with this is simple yet most of us miss it. The fact is that Christ's atoning work happened in History. It did not happen in the "before time." O sure, God knew it would happen. God, in fact, directed history in such a way to insure that the cross would happen. But, the simple fact of the matter is that Christ was doing something on Calvary--it was not a simple formality.

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)

Yea...I've heard something similar to this before. But, I don't see any warrent for this in the Bible.

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.

I used to think that too. But a particular redemption makes all the other stuff possible. Therefore, it is the crux. Because the sin and sins of the elect are paid for, God can regenerate the elect so that they are capable of making that decision.

I'm not sure if you read my last post about dead men....But, I don't know of a dead man that can respond to anything. Unless, however, he is made alive.

I completely agree that the ability and responsibility to accept Christ are crucial. We are all Responsible for our acceptance or rejection of Christ. However, we are all not able to respond.

I hope that helps---it is fun talking with other Christians. Some boards that I've written on in the past were not so nice.

I'll follow-up with another post that, I hope, makes things a bit more clear.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
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!

Exactly!! Where is the beef? You've provided absolutely zip, none, nada, zilch, goose-egg, zero.

And now you attempt to save face by turning the challenge back on me. But I wasn't claiming God uses multiple ways, I was simply trying to make you be specific with your scriptural support. I should have known how you'd react, so scratch the way I said it - I'll reword it for your benefit.

So I repeat:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

Show us that you actually have something to offer besides logical fallacies and game-playing debate tactics!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Calvinists on this board obviously disagree but have refused to offer me their interpretation of Act 28:25-28.

And you have completely failed to provide a single scripture that supports your premise for interpreting Acts 28 the way you do.

So I repeat YET AGAIN:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

Are you ever going to provide any scriptural substance to your assumptions, or can we expect you to do nothing but rely on logical fallacies and arguing from silence?

And while you're at it, perhaps you can:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

Or are you totally lacking in anything but tricky debate techniques?

 

[The Archangel]

Follow-Up!

The thing about Calvinism that most people are uncomfortable with is that it, to some degree, seems unfair.

How is it fair that God not save all and that He just save some?

I think this shows where our presuppositions are.

Those who think a "limited" or "particular" redemption, and all that that entails, is unfair miss a big part of the Bible and they don't even know it!

What they miss is that we are sinners. Paul says we are dead in our trespasses and sin. We are dead....we know what dead is. Dead is when you can't do a dog-on thing for yourself and you get put in a large box and are cerimoniously put in a hole 6-feet-deep.

To use an analogy:

Most people think of redemption this way: God, the loving Father preventing His children from running into the street into oncoming traffic.

However, the Bible paints a much different picture. The Bible says that we, the children, are lying in the street dead ALREADY having been hit by the "cars."

To follow this through, God is not the one who prevents us from running head-long into the death of oncomming traffic. He is the one who walks amongst the dead and revives some of them.

This was difficult for me to get. I didn't want to be a Calvinist because I thought it to be unfair. However, I realized it was the only position that accounted for all the Biblical data. And honestly, the Bible is much more open to me now.

This goes along with another common misconception about humans--Total depravity. Many people think that it is terrible and unthinkable when someone, for example, kills someone in a bank robbery. Why do we think this? We are sinners. Sinners sin...that's what we do. A sinner's sinning should not surprise us. What should surprise us is when a sinner becomes a "good samaritan." That person is a sinner but wait a minute, he's not sinning! In fact, he is doing something good! That should blow us away--not that a sinner sins.

Later,

Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Ok, The Acts 28:25-28 thing. Here we go!

1. Context:
Paul is in Rome. He is continuing his custom (and this is important) of going to the Jews first and then to the gentiles. It is almost always the case that Paul would preach and teach in the synagoge. As you might imagine, he would be bounced out of there, sometimes violently, and then take his mission to the gentiles.

Here in Rome, Paul is doing the same thing. He is preaching Christ to the Jewish people. Obviously, some believed and some didn't.

At the point that the get-together was becoming a contentious event, Paul quotes from the Old Testament--Isaiah, specifically.

2. Exposition

Paul, in v. 26, begins to "hammer" the Jews (perhaps the non-believers) who were leaving the party. He says, "Go to this people and say, You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; and you will keep on seeing, but will not percieve; For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.

Paul is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10 and in this passage. This passage deals with the commissioning of Isaiah. God tells Isaiah to go speak these words to the people because of their rejection of Him

Now, it is important to remember that the Jews are God's chosen people. In a sense, the didn't need faith, perhaps as we might. They and their ancestors had seen the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire; they had seen the Red Sea swallow the Egyptian armies; they had seen God carry them through the wilderness and deliver the promised land to them. The Jews were chosen to be the carrier of the oracles of God. Not to mention that when God became the God-Man Jesus, He was part of that chosen Jewish people.

The quote from Paul probably should be understood to have the same meaning. It is not related to the gentiles (until v. 28). Paul is describing their, the Jews, dead spiritual condition. It is helpfull that he quotes from Isaiah who is saying the same thing to the Jews of his time.

That Paul is saying that the Gentiles will hear the gospel is no big deal, textually. What it means is this: 1. As was his custom, Paul is now going to preach to the Gentiles in Rome and 2. God is no longer regarding the Jews with their same specialness. This would be quite insulting to the Jew who thanked God that he wasn't created a gentile or a woman. This is like Paul saying, "Your special status is gone."

Paul is going to the Gentiles and is trusting that God will pull converts from their number.

I hope that helps,

Archangel

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
That Paul is saying that the Gentiles will hear the gospel is no big deal, textually. What it means is this: 1. As was his custom, Paul is now going to preach to the Gentiles...

Absolutely. The message is simply "We're taking this to the Gentiles now." I pointed this out already, and I think others did, too.

Let me bring you up to date. Bill's theological concepts are based only on the absence of scripture. I know that sounds weird, but it's true. In other words, his theological assumptions start with what the Bible doesn't say, and goes downhill from there.

For example, "It doesn't specifically say that those who are unable to respond to the Gospel aren't the ones God hardens, therefore hardening is exclusive reason why someone would not respond to the Gospel."

The evidence to back this up is yet another absence of scripture: "It doesn't say that Gentiles are ever hardened, therefore only the Jews are hardened." (Someone pointed out that Pharoah was a Gentile, but it's impolite to confuse someone with facts.)

And in a prior thread, he claimed only apostles and prophets are predestined to be the elect, since "It doesn't say that all people are saved the same way as the apostles and prophets, therefore they aren't saved the same way."

Given that the assumptions are based on what scripture does not say, it is virtually impossible to provide a scriptural foundation for the theology. But as a matter of principle, I keep asking. So I'll ask again.

Hey Bill:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

And while you're at it:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
Christ atoning work is "eternal" in that it was accomplished even before the foundation of the world as scripture teaches...

The problem with this is simple yet most of us miss it. The fact is that Christ's atoning work happened in History. It did not happen in the "before time.".[/quote]

Yes, it did happen in history, but God and His eternal purposes are timeless:

Rev 13:8   And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Heb. 9:26 If that had been necessary, he would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But no! He came once for all time, at the end of the age, to remove the power of sin forever by his sacrificial death for us.27And just as it is destined that each person dies only once and after that comes judgment,28so also Christ died only once as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again but not to deal with our sins again. This time he will bring salvation to all those who are eagerly waiting for him.

I'm not sure if you read my last post about dead men....But, I don't know of a dead man that can respond to anything. Unless, however, he is made alive.

Yes, I'm very fimilar with the "dead men can't respond" argument. I used to use it quite frequently when I was a Calvinist. The bible also says that once we are Christians that we are "dead to sin" and "slaves to righteousness" but does that mean we don't have the ability to sin anymore? No. To assume the reverse is inconsistant with the biblical use of the word "dead."

I completely agree that the ability and responsibility to accept Christ are crucial. We are all Responsible for our acceptance or rejection of Christ. However, we are all not able to respond.

This is major logical and scriptural fallacy of Calvinists and the real crux of the debate. The scripture never teaches that all men are unable to respond to the geniune and powerful calling of the Holy Spirit through the gospel presentation (Calvinists believe in an effectual call, Arminians believe in a general call that is subject to man's acceptance or rejection). I don't believe scripture ever teaches "total inability."

I hope that helps---it is fun talking with other Christians. Some boards that I've written on in the past were not so nice.

I'll follow-up with another post that, I hope, makes things a bit more clear.

It's pleasant surprise to debate with someone who does not demean the person while disagreeing with the issues.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[William C]

Archangel, you've heard Npetreley's thoughts about me, but just look back at his comments and you will quickly learn that though he is in agreement with you theologically he does not bear any fruits of one who is willing to think outside his Calvinistic box.

He is rude at best and despite my continuous efforts to season our debate in brotherly love he continually pulls it back down into the mire he feels most comfortable debating in. He labels my arguments as being "unfounded," claims they aren't even worthy of response, ignores me for a while, makes a rude comment or two and then occasionally throws in a decent argument. When I seek to engage in a debate with his points he once again reverts back to labeling and dismissing or saying that my arguments are not worthy of his response.

Archangel, In one post you have shown more intergrity and substance than all of his posts on this board put together. So, please don't make any judgements based on what he says and please, for the love of all that is good, don't follow his example.

I appreciate your willingness to provide an interpretation to this text. I'll cover your arguments in my next post.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[npetreley]

Hey Bill! It's that rude guy again. Perhaps you missed these, because it's been weeks since you posted your opinions and you still haven't supplied any supporting scriptures for them. So here they are again:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

And while you're at it:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

Still waiting for that scriptural support...

UNTIL THEN, ALL YOUR TEACHING OF EVERYTHING IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:

Here in Rome, Paul is doing the same thing. He is preaching Christ to the Jewish people. Obviously, some believed and some didn't.

I agree, but I think it is important to point out the words that Luke uses in recording these events.

Acts. 28:23b-24:
"From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. Some were convinced by what he said but others would not believe."

I've never met a Calvinist who would say that we should "try to convince" people to believe in Jesus.

Paul then quotes a verse that is used in otherparts of the NT to specifically describe the "hardening" of Israel. The reason of the hardening is clear. It was because of Israel's continual rebellion, not because of the Fall as some Calvinist have attempted to argue.

The hardening is a unique and temporary circumstance for the purpose of grafting in the Gentiles and provoking the Israelites to "envy," as spoken of in Romans 11.

Paul, in v. 26, begins to "hammer" the Jews (perhaps the non-believers) who were leaving the party. He says, "Go to this people and say, You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; and you will keep on seeing, but will not percieve; For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.

Notice the word "otherwise." It refers to what could happen if they were not hardened. Therefore, those who are not hardened (Remnant and Gentiles) can hear, see, understand and turn, if indeed they have not been hardened.

How do I know the Remnant and the Gentiles are not "hardened?"
1. Romans 11 tells us the Remnant are not hardened.
2. Gentiles in this text are contrasted with hardened Israel. Also look at Matthew 21:42-43; Mark 4:10-12; John 12:38-41.
3. The Gentiles are never spoken of as being "hardened," in fact, the scripture NEVER refers the the Gentiles inability to believe the gospel as it does hardened Israel. If it does please show me.

Now, it is important to remember that the Jews are God's chosen people. In a sense, they didn't need faith, perhaps as we might.

Be careful, I've been saying that the apostles didn't have the same type of "faith" as we must have because of what they experienced and I got blasted by the Calvinists on this post. But I get your point.

They and their ancestors had seen the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire; they had seen the Red Sea swallow the Egyptian armies; they had seen God carry them through the wilderness and deliver the promised land to them. The Jews were chosen to be the carrier of the oracles of God. Not to mention that when God became the God-Man Jesus, He was part of that chosen Jewish people.

The quote from Paul probably should be understood to have the same meaning. It is not related to the gentiles (until v. 28). Paul is describing their, the Jews, dead spiritual condition. It is helpfull that he quotes from Isaiah who is saying the same thing to the Jews of his time.

Yes, I agree, the Israelites were entrusted with the things of God; but your forgeting and they continually rebelled thus resulting in their hardening.

"All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedienct and obstinate people."

This is the reason God "hardens" them. If God did not give them the ability to respond to Him, as Calvinism teaches, it doesn't make much sense for God to 'harden' them for not responding, especially when they are born "totally inable" as you believe.

It like this: If you had a deaf child and you called his name several times. He doesn't respond, of course, because of his inability to hear, which you are well aware of. In fact you allowed his deafness and have the power to heal his deafness. You continue to call out to him, but he, of course, still can't hear you. Then you get angry and say, "Enough is enough, you continually ignore my calling so I'm going to make deaf!"

Does that make any sense?!?

Why would God harden people who are hardened by the fall? Why deafen or blind someone who is born blind and deaf because of the Fall?

And why get "angry" with a group of people who have no control of there inability, especially when you are the only source of ability?

Your system has huge logical fallacies that don't match up with the whole counsel of God's Word.

That Paul is saying that the Gentiles will hear the gospel is no big deal, textually.

I disagree. It's a big deal because this statement is in contrast to the hardened Israelites. That is significant in showing that the Gentiles are not "totally unable" to believe as is hardened Israel (John 12:37-41).

What it means is this: 1. As was his custom, Paul is now going to preach to the Gentiles in Rome and 2. God is no longer regarding the Jews with their same specialness. This would be quite insulting to the Jew who thanked God that he wasn't created a gentile or a woman. This is like Paul saying, "Your special status is gone." Paul is going to the Gentiles and is trusting that God will pull converts from their number.

Here is another example in Act 18 of what you are describing:
5And after Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul spent his full time preaching and testifying to the Jews, telling them, "The Messiah you are looking for is Jesus."6But when the Jews opposed him and insulted him, Paul shook the dust from his robe and said, "Your blood be upon your own heads--I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

Does this sound like a man who didn't truely believe that he might be able to convince some of the Jews to believe? I don't believe a Calvinist would have had this reaction to rejection.

Plus look at what the text says just a few paragraphs earlier:

24"He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn't live in man-made temples,25and human hands can't serve his needs--for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need there is.26From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand which should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.27"His purpose in all of this was that the nations should seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him--though he is not far from any one of us.28For in him we live and move and exist. As one of your own poets says, `We are his offspring.'

Odd that God would do all of that for the purpose of causing people to seek after Him and perhaps find him if He never grants them that ability in the first place.

With Respect,
Bill

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Hey Bill! It's that rude guy again. Perhaps you missed these, because it's been weeks since you posted your opinions and you still haven't supplied any supporting scriptures for them. So here they are again:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

I've answered this question twice for you without any response and yet you have yet to provide scriptural support that man is "total unable" to respond to the gospel besides those passages that are in reference to Israel's hardening. We can clearly see that the bible teaches Israel is hardened, it is not clear that the Gentiles are also hardened and its not clear that they are "totally unable" to believe either. That's your claim, therefore your burden to prove it!

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

This has been fully discussed on the other posts, you ignored many of my posts then too, remember. "It's not worthy of my response." I believe those were your exact words.

"Effectually Calling" is only spoken of in regard to Apostles in the scriptures, therefore your claim that God treats us all in the same manner as his divinely appointed apostles is your burden to prove.

If you make a claim that is not found in the scripture it is your burden to provide support, just because it is historical Calvinism doesn't give you the right to ignore your burden.

Calvinists claims that are not found in Scripture:
1. The Fall causes all man to be totally unable to respond to the Gospel. (which makes no sense in light of Israel's hardening. Why deafen a man who was born deaf?)
2. The Gentiles are hardened too. (Dallas and Sturgman argue this and you did not disagree)
3. God appoints us to respond to the message of the gospel in the same manner that God appointed his divine apostles.

Where is your support for these claims. Just because you were on this board first doesn't give you the right to ignore you unproven burdens!

 

[The Archangel]

Bill,

Back to the Acts passage...

Yes, it did happen in history, but God and His eternal purposes are timeless:

The purposes are timeless, that is correct. However, God acts within the framework of time. For example, the payment that Christ made on the cross (either general or particular) was not paid until "Good Friday." It was not paid a week or a month or years earlier; it was not paid years later, etc. Something took place on Calvary--it wasn't a formality or a show.

This would be like saying that since so-and-so and I are going to be married in a year, it is OK for us to live together as husband and wife now.

Living as husband and wife and, more to the point, the sexual union is not "legal" in God's standards until after the marriage ceremony. This same idea applies to the redemption on the Cross.

The bible also says that once we are Christians that we are "dead to sin" and "slaves to righteousness" but does that mean we don't have the ability to sin anymore? No. To assume the reverse is inconsistant with the biblical use of the word "dead."

No, it isn't inconsistant. Unfortunatly, I think that you missed the context of Romans 6:11. The passage is dealing with the idea of should a Christian sin so that Grace may abound. Of course, Paul says "May it never be!"

The most telling part of the passage is not where Paul says "dead to sin." The most important part of the passage, contextually (for our discussion) is the word consider. This word is "Logidzesthe" in greek. It is a present, middle, imparitive. In other words, it means "Take the attitude to yourself that you are dead to sin."

Also, in the Romans 6:19 passage, Paul is not declaring that Christians are slaves to righteousness, he is saying to "Present your members as slaves to righteousness."

The Ephesians passage (Eph 2:1-2) is a declaritive passage. You were dead (in what?) in your transgressions and sins (from where?) in which you used to live when you followed the was of this world...

It is quite clear that the uses of Dead do not contradict one another.

This is major logical and scriptural fallacy of Calvinists and the real crux of the debate. The scripture never teaches that all men are unable to respond to the geniune and powerful calling of the Holy Spirit through the gospel presentation (Calvinists believe in an effectual call, Arminians believe in a general call that is subject to man's acceptance or rejection). I don't believe scripture ever teaches "total inability."

Again, Dead men can't do a thing for themselves.

It is pretty cool talking with you too. I will always attempt to keep a civil tone.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
Hey Bill! It's that rude guy again. Perhaps you missed these, because it's been weeks since you posted your opinions and you still haven't supplied any supporting scriptures for them. So here they are again:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

I've answered this question twice for you without any response and yet you have yet to provide scriptural support that man is "total unable" to respond to the gospel besides those passages that are in reference to Israel's hardening. We can clearly see that the bible teaches Israel is hardened, it is not clear that the Gentiles are also hardened and its not clear that they are "totally unable" to believe either. That's your claim, therefore your burden to prove it!</font>[/QUOTE]No, YOUR claim is that the gentiles can hear of their own free will, and your reasoning is that the difference between those who can hear and those who cannot all comes down to hardening. Once again, you base your conclusion on, "It is not clear that the Gentiles are hardened." So, as I've said repeatedly, your reasoning is based on what the Bible does NOT say. That is arguing from silence, which is nothing but a shoddy debate technique.

So I ask once again for the scriptural support for your premise:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

Until you do, your teaching is ENTIRELY UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE. (See? I can use all caps, too.)

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

This has been fully discussed on the other posts, you ignored many of my posts then too, remember. "It's not worthy of my response." I believe those were your exact words.

"Effectually Calling" is only spoken of in regard to Apostles in the scriptures, therefore your claim that God treats us all in the same manner as his divinely appointed apostles is your burden to prove.</font>[/QUOTE]There you go again. You are saying exactly what I claim you say -- that your conclusions are based on what is NOT in the Bible. This is classic arguing from silence, which amounts to nothing more than a manipulative debate technique.

So when are you going to offer anything of substance? I ask you again:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

 

[The Archangel]

Bill,

I've never met a Calvinist who would say that we should "try to convince" people to believe in Jesus.

Well, you haven't met too many "Good" Calvinists, then. I think Spurgeon sumed it up the best when he said something to the effect of "God did not paint the mebmers of the elect with a big, yellow stripe down their back. If he had, it would have made things much easier."

All of that is to say, we do and should evangelize in a way that we earnestly try to convince all that Christ is the way. We do not know who will and who won't respond. But, that does not remove the responsibility of the "Great Commission" from us! We are still called to "Go" and "Preach" and "Make Disciples."

Paul then quotes a verse that is used in otherparts of the NT to specifically describe the "hardening" of Israel. The reason of the hardening is clear. It was because of Israel's continual rebellion, not because of the Fall as some Calvinist have attempted to argue.

Obviously, I dissagree with your assessment. But this leads me to another question: What about Pharoah and his hard heart?

Notice the word "otherwise." It refers to what could happen if they were not hardened. Therefore, those who are not hardened (Remnant and Gentiles) can hear, see, understand and turn, if indeed they have not been hardened.

Of course "otherwise" points to greener pastures. But, that isn't a real big deal. God always uses that in the Prophets to call Israel to give an account for their breaking of the Covenant. Moses used it in Deuteronomy.

The fact remains, that Romans 3:10-11 cannot be overlooked: as it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.

If none are righteous, and if none seek after God how could that be anything but a hard heart. Rember, this Romans passage is not conditional in language--It is declaritive.

It would seem that this passage is extreemly damaging to your position. In fact, I'd like to know what you think of this passage.

The Gentiles are never spoken of as being "hardened," in fact, the scripture NEVER refers the the Gentiles inability to believe the gospel as it does hardened Israel. If it does please show me.

It would seem that the afore mentioned Romans passage does not qualify between Jews and Gentiles. It says "All."

It like this: If you had a deaf child and you called his name several times. He doesn't respond, of course, because of his inability to hear, which you are well aware of. In fact you allowed his deafness and have the power to heal his deafness. You continue to call out to him, but he, of course, still can't hear you. Then you get angry and say, "Enough is enough, you continually ignore my calling so I'm going to make deaf!"

Does that make any sense?!?

Why would God harden people who are hardened by the fall? Why deafen or blind someone who is born blind and deaf because of the Fall?

And why get "angry" with a group of people who have no control of there inability, especially when you are the only source of ability?

Again, this assumes that humans are basically "good" when the Bible definatly says that we are not. Review my post on "Playing in Traffic" in case you missed it.

Because it would seem that we are at an impasse, I would like to ask this question: What happened on Good Friday on the Cross? This may help to break-down the road blocks.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:

. That is arguing from silence, which is nothing but a shoddy debate technique. ...
There you go again. You are saying exactly what I claim you say -- that your conclusions are based on what is NOT in the Bible. This is classic arguing from silence, which amounts to nothing more than a manipulative debate technique.

Npety, I love you brother but this is the last time I'm responding to this nonsense.

The Bible never says the Gentiles are harden nor does it say they are totally unable. Therefore, you are "arguing from silence." The Calvinist on this post are saying the Bible never says the Gentiles are not hardened so they must be. That is an argument from silence. I'm arguing that what the scripture says is all that it means, nothing more. If it says Israel is hardened, I don't assume anything more unless given reason by scripture to do so.

It says the apostles are effectually called, I don't assume anything more unless the scripture gives me reason to make that link. Both of your assumptions are assumptions made while the scripture remains silent. This is the last time I'm taking the time to tell you this. I've provided more scriptural support for my assumptions than you have for yours and yet you ignore the scripture and label my arguments as "shoddy debate techniques."

Funny that you don't call Yelsew's or the other Arminians arguments that? They are doing the exact same things you and I are doing.

If you feel that my arguments are "unfounded" then move on and go debate Yelsew, he has some arguments I'm sure your "pat answers" can handle.

God Bless and have fun debating those "good" techniques,
Bill

 

[sturgman]

Bro Bill, you are also using "an arguement of silence" when you argue with us. You say that the the gentiles are not hardened, and that they have free will. Yet this is not in scripture, it is only your assumption based upon how you interpret these scriptures. You say the apostles are elect, but we are not. The scriptures does not say that we are not, in faact it says in Titus that we are chosen. Yet, you continue to hold to that.

I am not trying to argue here, just looking at it objectively. You are accusing us of argueing incorrectly, then you turn around and use the same debate tactics on us.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
The purposes are timeless, that is correct. However, God acts within the framework of time. For example, the payment that Christ made on the cross (either general or particular) was not paid until "Good Friday." It was not paid a week or a month or years earlier; it was not paid years later, etc. Something took place on Calvary--it wasn't a formality or a show.

This would be like saying that since so-and-so and I are going to be married in a year, it is OK for us to live together as husband and wife now.

Living as husband and wife and, more to the point, the sexual union is not "legal" in God's standards until after the marriage ceremony. This same idea applies to the redemption on the Cross.

Angel, look at these passages: "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." And "once for all time" that is past, present and future, which is why the sins of those in the OT are covered by Christ as well. The atonement can be applied at any time because God's works are timeless. Again this should not be the focus of the debate:

Rev 13:8   And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Heb. 9:26 If that had been necessary, he would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But no! He came once for all time, at the end of the age, to remove the power of sin forever by his sacrificial death for us.27And just as it is destined that each person dies only once and after that comes judgment,28so also Christ died only once as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again but not to deal with our sins again. This time he will bring salvation to all those who are eagerly waiting for him.

No, it isn't inconsistant. Unfortunatly, I think that you missed the context of Romans 6:11. The passage is dealing with the idea of should a Christian sin so that Grace may abound. Of course, Paul says "May it never be!"

The most telling part of the passage is not where Paul says "dead to sin." The most important part of the passage, contextually (for our discussion) is the word consider. This word is "Logidzesthe" in greek. It is a present, middle, imparitive. In other words, it means "Take the attitude to yourself that you are dead to sin."

Also, in the Romans 6:19 passage, Paul is not declaring that Christians are slaves to righteousness, he is saying to "Present your members as slaves to righteousness."

The Ephesians passage (Eph 2:1-2) is a declaritive passage. You were dead (in what?) in your transgressions and sins (from where?) in which you used to live when you followed the was of this world...

It is quite clear that the uses of Dead do not contradict one another.

Angel we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. The scripture never links the term "dead" to "total inability" to respond to the powerful calling of the Holy Spirit through the gospel. That is a big jump to make just from the one word "dead," especially when the word is obviously used in other contexts that does not mean "totally unable."

Using the word "dead" may be a good analogy that Calvinist can use to draw out a conclusion. But that conclusion is not supported by scripture. If you can show where the word "dead" mean totally unable to respond to the calling of the Holy Spirit through the gospel then this word might have some substance.

Again, Dead men can't do a thing for themselves.

Angel, that is an assumption that you pull from the word dead. How can you support that scriptually?

It is pretty cool talking with you too. I will always attempt to keep a civil tone.

I really appreciate that. I enjoy debating with you as well.

God Bless,
Bill

[ February 24, 2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Bro Bill, you are also using "an arguement of silence" when you argue with us. You say that the the gentiles are not hardened, and that they have free will. Yet this is not in scripture, it is only your assumption based upon how you interpret these scriptures. You say the apostles are elect, but we are not. The scriptures does not say that we are not, in faact it says in Titus that we are chosen. Yet, you continue to hold to that.

I am not trying to argue here, just looking at it objectively. You are accusing us of argueing incorrectly, then you turn around and use the same debate tactics on us.

Sturgman, I'm not making these accusation to you but to Nepty. You at least admit that you are using the same techniques therefore leading use to look at our various scriptural supports. Nepty ignores my scriptural and logical arguments because he thinks they are unfounded based upon my "shoddy debate techniques" which as you have pointed out are the same "techniques" that everyone utilizes to support their view.

While you admit we both have to support our "assumptions" Nepty merely dismissing them claiming that he is on some "higher ground" of debate than everyone else. It's getting old.

I would be more than happy to discuss with you why I hold to my views, but we must agree not to merely ignore them as "tricks" or "shoddy debate techniques" while going on to use those same techniques yourself. Ok?

BTW, what exactly have I argued from silence? I'm not saying that I haven't, I merely asking what you think I've argued from silence. Thanks.

Bill

 

[William C]

"All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedienct and obstinate people."

This is the reason God "hardens" them, they continually rebelled. If God did not give them the ability to respond to Him, as Calvinism teaches, it doesn't make much sense for God to 'harden' them for not responding, especially when they are born "totally inable" as you believe.

It is like this: If you had a deaf child and you called his name several times. He doesn't respond, of course, because of his inability to hear, which you are well aware of. In fact you allowed his deafness and have the power to heal his deafness. You continue to call out to him, but he, of course, still can't hear you. Then you get angry and say, "Enough is enough, you continually ignore my calling so I'm going to make deaf!"
Does that make any sense?!?

Why would God harden people who are hardened by the fall? Why deafen or blind someone who is born blind and deaf because of the Fall?

And why get "angry" with a group of people who have no control of there inability, especially when you are the only source of ability?

Your system has huge logical fallacies that don't match up with the whole counsel of God's Word.

Could one of you deal with these questions? Thanks

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Npety, I love you brother but this is the last time I'm responding to this nonsense.

The Bible never says the Gentiles are harden ...

Once again, you have already inserted your assumption here, and it is based on silence. You have failed to provide scriptural support for hardening as equivalent to the inability to respond to the Gospel. Yet you begin your argument with that conclusion -- and then you proceed to argue from MORE silence by saying that the Bible never says the Gentiles are hardened. That might actually mean something if you'd simply provide a scripture that defines hardening as the only reason people cannot respond. But you can't provide that scripture, because it doesn't exist. So instead of admitting your argument has no merit whatsoever, you ignore scripture that DOES exist:

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
nor does it say they are totally unable.

It DOES say we are totally inable, but you would rather ignore those plain scriptures in favor of your hypothesis based on no scripture at all.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Calvinist on this post are saying the Bible never says the Gentiles are not hardened so they must be. That is an argument from silence.

You are grossly misrepresenting the Calvinist view, because you impose upon it your first assumption - that hardening and the inability to respond are identical. You do this repeatedly even though you have not provided a shred of scriptural support for this assumption.

So you judge the Calvinist view by imposing on it a false assumption based on false criteria invented from no scripture whatsoever! That takes a lot of chutzpah.

I won't bother addressing the rest of your substance-free post. When are you ever going to provide scriptural support instead of assumptions based on the LACK of scripture?