CALVINISM'S TEACHING OF TOTAL INABILITY IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

[William C]

by Sturgman:
You say that the the gentiles are not hardened, and that they have free will. Yet this is not in scripture.

Heb. 3:7That is why the Holy Spirit says,
      "Today you must listen to his voice.
      8Don't harden your hearts against him
            as Israel did when they rebelled,
            when they tested God's patience in the wilderness.
      9There your ancestors tried my patience,
            even though they saw my miracles for forty years.
      10So I was angry with them, and I said,
      `Their hearts always turn away from me.
            They refuse to do what I tell them.'
      11So in my anger I made a vow:
            `They will never enter my place of rest.'"
12Be careful then, dear brothers and sisters. Make sure that your own hearts are not evil and unbelieving, turning you away from the living God.13You must warn each other every day, as long as it is called "today," so that none of you will be deceived by sin and hardened against God.14For if we are faithful to the end, trusting God just as firmly as when we first believed, we will share in all that belongs to Christ.15But never forget the warning:
      "Today you must listen to his voice.
            Don't harden your hearts against him
            as Israel did when they rebelled."
    16And who were those people who rebelled against God, even though they heard his voice? Weren't they the ones Moses led out of Egypt?17And who made God angry for forty years? Wasn't it the people who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?18And to whom was God speaking when he vowed that they would never enter his place of rest? He was speaking to those who disobeyed him.19So we see that they were not allowed to enter his rest because of their unbelief.

1God's promise of entering his place of rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to get there.2For this Good News [gospel]--that God has prepared a place of rest--has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn't believe what God told them.[some translation say, "those who heard did not combine it with faith."]3For only we who believe can enter his place of rest. As for those who didn't believe, God said,
      "In my anger I made a vow:
            `They will never enter my place of rest,'"
even though his place of rest has been ready since he made the world.4We know it is ready because the Scriptures mention the seventh day, saying, "On the seventh day God rested from all his work."5But in the other passage God said, "They will never enter my place of rest."6So God's rest is there for people to enter. But those who formerly heard the Good News failed to enter because they disobeyed God.7So God set another time for entering his place of rest, and that time is today. God announced this through David a long time later in the words already quoted:
      "Today you must listen to his voice.
            Don't harden your hearts against him."
8This new place of rest was not the land of Canaan, where Joshua led them. If it had been, God would not have spoken later about another day of rest.9So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God.10For all who enter into God's rest will find rest from their labors, just as God rested after creating the world.11Let us do our best to enter that place of rest. For anyone who disobeys God, as the people of Israel did, will fall.12For the word of God is full of living power. It is sharper than the sharpest knife, cutting deep into our innermost thoughts and desires. It exposes us for what we really are.13Nothing in all creation can hide from him. Everything is naked and exposed before his eyes. This is the God to whom we must explain all that we have done.

Hardening only takes place AFTER one has heard the good news and rejects it. Hardening is not a result of the fall as you assert.

If we reject the good news we will also be cut off, or hardened to the things of God.

Romans 11:7-24

7But some of these branches from Abraham's tree, some of the Jews, have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, were grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in God's rich nourishment of his special olive tree.18But you must be careful not to brag about being grafted in to replace the branches that were broken off. Remember, you are just a branch, not the root.19"Well," you may say, "those branches were broken off to make room for me."20Yes, but remember--those branches, the Jews, were broken off because they didn't believe God, and you are there because you do believe. Don't think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen.21For if God did not spare the branches he put there in the first place, he won't spare you either.22Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe to those who disobeyed, but kind to you as you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off.23And if the Jews turn from their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree again. He has the power to do it.24For if God was willing to take you who were, by nature, branches from a wild olive tree and graft you into his own good tree--a very unusual thing to do--he will be far more eager to graft the Jews back into the tree where they belong.

Questions:
1. If "hardening" is a result of unbelief (as taught in Heb); why would God "harden" the Gentiles if they hadn't even heard the "gospel" yet?
2. Why would God "harden" the Israelites if they were born "total unable" (which seems to mean the same thing as hardening) as a result of the Fall? They are hardened for unbelief, but they don't believe because they are hardened? This is nonsense.
3. Why would the writer of Heb. warn believers to be careful not to be "hardened" by doing what Israel did, if indeed everyone is "hardened" from the Fall?

You all are not being consistant with your terminology. If you don't believe "total Inability" as taught by Calvinism is equivelant to "hardening" can you please provide us a definition of these two terms so I can understand where you stand on these issues?

Thanks,
Bill

 

[The Archangel]

Bill,

I think agreeing to disagree may be the order of the day. However, as to the "crux" of the issue, I do think that the following quote by you is, in fact,the most important part of the whole ball of wax!

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:

Romans 3:25 speaks to this issue. "Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

This passage plainly states that Christ's death was the "settleing" of all OT sin accounts. The sins of Moses, Abraham, David, to name a few were paid for at the cross.

It is like this: God passed over the sins previously committed. That means, in effect, He put those people's sins on His "Credit Card." He knew Christ would come and He knew that His payment would be sufficient.

Why, then, did Jesus have to die? Because God could have been rightly accused of being unjust for not rightly punishing sin. Remember: God does not and cannot forgive sin--He requires a payment. Sin is such a gruesome and hideous affront to the holiness of God that it must be punished and not swept under the rug.

Therefore, the sins of the OT Saints were not actually paid for until Good Friday was accomplished.

Hebrews speaks to this point as well when it talks about the OT sacrificial system. The Author rightly shows the absolute inability of the Sacrificial system of animals to save anyone. Therefore, a better, perfect, sacrifice (Christ) was needed.

If, as you are suggesting, Christ's sacrifice had an eternal efficacy from all eternity, then why did God punish Moses for his sin before entering the promised land? If it is as you suggest, then God should have said, "That's OK Mo....It's paid for. Similarly, why did the Israelites need to conduct the Day of Atonement ceremonies every year? God could have said, "That's cool Y'all....it's paid for.

The reality is that Christ's death, while having eternal significance, did not actually pay for the sins until He hung upon the Cross. It was at this moment that God settled all accounts past, present, and future.

Archangel

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.

Bill,

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.

I must admit, your rejection of this exposition is troubling. This is not, at this point, a theological disagreement. It is a disagreement about what is actually printed on the page. Even without giving any hermenutical consideration to the passages, one should be able to see that Paul's statements to "Consider ones self dead to sin," etc. are not declaritive. You want to read those passages as saying "You are dead to sin." However that is not possible. The text simply doesn't say that. It does, in fact, say to consider yourselves dead to sin.

I don't mean this to be offensive. Please don't take me so. I am simply stating that, even without any hermenutical considerations, you have misread the passage.

Respectfully and Blessings,

Archangel

 

[npetreley]

I don't mean this to be offensive. Please don't take me so. I am simply stating that, even without any hermenutical considerations, you have misread the passage.

Welcome to my world!

I wish I were as patient as you. Pray.

 

[The Archangel]

npetreley,

Welcome to my world!

I wish I were as patient as you. Pray

Well, I do try to be patient. However, sometimes I find my patience is not what it should be. So, I'd appreciate your prayers in this matter.

I guess R.C. Sproul is right when he says that the most ardent supporters of Calvinism are, usually, people who were Arminians.

Unfortunatly, (or perhaps fortunatly?) I am a passionate person and when you see something so clearly, it is difficult not to be over passionate and loose sight that you are talking to brothers and sisters about things which may or may not be "Fundamental issues." I whole-heartedly beleive that the Calvinist slant is the right one. However, I must remember that the brother who is an Arminian is not any less saved than I am. I just think he or she is missing-out on some of the awsome, unfathomable, mind-blowing, grace of God. That is what is unfortunate--not that someone is not a Calvinist.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[sturgman]

Bill, those verses are written to believing people, not unbelievers. They speak of the calousness of the heart that believers can get when they continually act in disobedience.

Now the arguement comes up, that if a christians is really a christian can he remain in sin? The answer is no. Well sort of. He can be in sin, but he can never be happy there. And I believe that our bodys can be handed over to satan, so that our souls may be saved.

So I do ont see where your claim that hardening is when an unbeliever rejects the pursuing of God. When God pursues something, He will always get it.

 

[Yelsew]

So I do ont see where your claim that hardening is when an unbeliever rejects the pursuing of God. When God pursues something, He will always get it.

Then you are saying that salvation is not a free gift of God to all mankind, but only those whom God pursues! What a false doctrine that is. It cannot be substantiated in scripture!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Bill, those verses are written to believing people, not unbelievers. They speak of the calousness of the heart that believers can get when they continually act in disobedience.

Yes, I know who these passages are written to. Don't you think Israel believed in God too? They saw his miraclous signs, carried his words, produced his prophets, and ulimately were the linage of the Christ, yet most of them, while believing in Him, rebelled against him continually. If we, as believers, do that these passages are very clear as to our demise. One could argue that the people he is refering to are those who "think they are believers" but they really aren't. That's fine, but it still represents my point that they haven't yet been hardened as you suggest. You haven't dealt with these passages at all, you've only said they don't apply to believers. That's really not the point, the point is: NOT EVERYONE IS HARDENED.

People are not hardened until they have continually rejected God's ways. The Gentiles had not done that because they hadn't "heard" of God's ways and the Remnant were spared by God's grace so as to accomplish his purpose in redemption.

So I don't see where your claim that hardening is when an unbeliever rejects the pursuing of God. When God pursues something, He will always get it.

I never said that.
I said that hardening is a result of people's rejection of God's ways. If you mean by "pursuit" --"a sovereign decree of God," I agree. If God determines to cause something to happen by his sovereign will, it will happen. But you assume that God "sovereignly decrees" each man's salvation instead of allowing them to respond to His provisions.

This is where I take issue. Why would God grow angry with the Israelites for their unbelief if they don't have the ability to beleive? Why would He "make them unable to believe" [harden them] because they wouldn't believe? It just doesn't make any sense.

He hardens them because their belief is not mixed with faith. Faith, as we learn from James, is belief that leads to obedience. That is man's responsiblity, though God receives all the glory for it.

Your view makes God into this divine actor who acts like he is upset at people for doing the only thing they can do. He pretends like he is geniunely calling everyone to come unto him saying things like, "Come to me all of you who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest." But in reality His is just acting like he is calling everyone, really he has a secret "effectual calling" for his elect. It's all just for show.

The Arminian asks, "Why?"

"To show is glory!"

What? You are telling me that God decieves us into thinking he is calling all men to himself and he acts like he is mad at past generations for their rebellion when He knows full well that was the only thing they were capable of doing? Then he sends these people who have no ability to respond to his call into an eternal fire to be tortured without end? Yeah, that view of God really highlights his Glory.....NOT!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:

The reality is that Christ's death, while having eternal significance, did not actually pay for the sins until He hung upon the Cross. It was at this moment that God settled all accounts past, present, and future.

Angel,
Most of what you wrote concerning the atonement I agree with, but you still haven't dealt with the two passages that speak of the timelessness of Christ's work. What do they mean to you?

The reason I don't believe this should be the crux of the debate is because there is no way for us to know when the atonement is applied to those who believe.

You could argue that it is applied to the elect, while I argue it is applied to all who believe, which in essense is the same thing to you, for all who believe are the elect in the Calvinistic system, Right? So, the issue is not the application of the atonement, but who determines who receives this application.

Is it determined by God for each individual? Or has God made it available to all who choose to accept it?

That question is answered by the issue of "Total Inability," which is why I spend the majority of my efforts on this issue. I hope that makes sense.

I must admit, your rejection of this exposition is troubling. This is not, at this point, a theological disagreement. It is a disagreement about what is actually printed on the page. Even without giving any hermenutical consideration to the passages, one should be able to see that Paul's statements to "Consider ones self dead to sin," etc. are not declaritive. You want to read those passages as saying "You are dead to sin." However that is not possible. The text simply doesn't say that. It does, in fact, say to consider yourselves dead to sin.

We are to consider ourselves dead to sin just as we should consider ourselves to have been "spiritually dead" before we were saved, neither of which necessitate "total inability" to that which we are "dead" to. It's an analogy that discribes our condition, it never links "death" to inability.

Earlier in Rom. 6:2 he says "we who died to sin." He does not say "consider yourself" in this passage. He actually says we died to sin, but that does not mean that there is total inability for Christians to sin. You are taking an analogy further than the scripture takes it. Death is never linked to the "total inability" of man to respond to the call of God.

If so, the word "dead" might be used when speaking of the "hardening" of Israel. Now there is a group of people who can't believe! (John 12:37-41)

I don't mean this to be offensive. Please don't take me so. I am simply stating that, even without any hermenutical considerations, you have misread the passage.

After hearing from Nepty these last several weeks I don't think you could ever sound offensive to me Angel. You are a breath of fresh air in comparison!

I have considered all of these texts hermeneutically, which is exactly why I disagree with your conclusions. Being "dead to" something never implies a "total inability" to respond to God's call, especially when you believe as I do that His general call of the gospel can pearce a wayward heart.

The Spirit's call is necessary for one to respond, but Calvinists insist that the Holy Spirit must indwell a person before they can truly believe. This clearly contradicts the scripture in numerous places!

With Respect,
Bill

 

[sturgman]

The objections you have bro bill is not with scripture, it is with the ideas that scripture lead you too. You assumptions are faulty because you are the standard as to what is fair. In all reality, God is the standard on what is just.

Let me ask you something. Do you demand obedience from your children? Do you demand it all the time? of course you do, what parent wouldn't. Do they always obey? No of course not. Does that mean your standard changes? No. It means you called them to do something they are not capable of doing.

With God it is the same way. He can call everyman to do something that they cannot do. He can hold them culpable for those things. He can even same a remnant out of grace and still be righteous.

Your problems with election are not with scripture. It is where it leads you in your own "freedom".

 

[The Archangel]

Bill,

Most of what you wrote concerning the atonement I agree with, but you still haven't dealt with the two passages that speak of the timelessness of Christ's work. What do they mean to you?

The "timelessness" of the Atonement is only properly understood in the sense that God planned it before the creation of the universe and that God directs all of history to culminate in the death of Christ on the cross.

The actual event is not timeless, per se. It does, perhaps, have timeless effects--The pardoning of the sins of some past, present, and future. However, the event is still "One moment in time."

The reason I don't believe this should be the crux of the debate is because there is no way for us to know when the atonement is applied to those who believe.

Actually, I think there is a way to know. No one is saved before they choose to be saved. For example, someone can think themselves to be one of the elect and think, "I'm elect, I don't need to believe in Jesus...God died for me anyway." This is horrendus!!!!!! The application of grace to the "account" of a sinner is always at the point where the sinner comes to saving faith in Christ.

Is it determined by God for each individual? Or has God made it available to all who choose to accept it?

Both. God determines who He will elect. Let's use an example--"Bob." Bob is a member of the elect. However, God knows that at age 35 Bob will accept Christ because God planned it that way. But, Bob is not saved until he is 35. At age 20, if he were to die in a car accident (which because the plans and purposes of God are unthwartable doesn't happen), he would not be saved.

At the appointed time, 35, something happens to Bob. He begins to notice things that he has been missing for years. In particular, he notices the "God shaped void," perhaps, inside of him and he longs to fill it. The Holy Spirit has been at work regenerating Bob so that the "Heart of stone" is replaced with the "Heart of flesh." As the Spirit continues His work, Bob comes to the place where he commits his life, and all that is involved with that, to Christ. Then, and only then, is he saved.

None of us are "able" until God makes us able. After we are made able, or regenerated, then we can make the choice for ourselves. Of course, since the hard heart is removed, we see God for all He is and realize that we cannot live without Him. We rush to the fountain of Himself to drink and drink and drink from His wonderous, overflowing, endless bounty of Grace.

If we were able and God considered us able, would that not be a "Work" that merrited God's Grace? Work that merrits Grace is not Grace. God is indebted to no one. None of us can say to God, "You owe me this because I have done this."

We are to consider ourselves dead to sin just as we should consider ourselves to have been "spiritually dead" before we were saved

That's not what it says. It declares us to have been spiritually dead not to consider ourselves spiritually dead.

Earlier in Rom. 6:2 he says "we who died to sin." He does not say "consider yourself" in this passage. He actually says we died to sin, but that does not mean that there is total inability for Christians to sin. You are taking an analogy further than the scripture takes it. Death is never linked to the "total inability" of man to respond to the call of God.

I agree that the text of Rom 6:2 says, "2 Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" However, this passage is not like the other ones. Paul, here, is addressing Christians who are continuing to be slaves to sinful things. Who knows, perhaps some of the Roman Christians were still going to participate in the orgies of Dionysis? Paul is admonishing them that they, by the nature of Christ's propitiatory, substitutionary atonement, are now dead to sin. The chains of slavery to sin are broken because of Christ's work. Therefore, he asks, how or why do you still live in slavery to your old master?

This use of dead is quite different from the one of Ephesians.

Again, I'm troubled by some of the contexts that you seem to miss or gloss-over. I am well aware that I am capable of that oversight too. However, in this instance, I think you have mixed the proverbial apples with the proverbial oranges. I will, however, keep studying to make sure that I am not missing something.

Good night and God Bless

Archangel

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
After hearing from Nepty these last several weeks I don't think you could ever sound offensive to me Angel. You are a breath of fresh air in comparison!

The fact that I personally seem to have you so bent out of shape only confirms that I have exposed your theology as nothing but tricky debate tactics and smoke and mirrors based on an absence of scripture.

I must admit, that is actually quite satisfying. But I would be even more satisfied if you'd change your mind and start basing your ideas on what the Bible says, and not what it DOESN'T say.

 

[romanbear]

Hi Nepetrely;
Actually you haven't proven anything about Calvinism.Not one point of the tulip. In fact none of the Calvinist here can prove anything about Calvinism.It's unprovable.
Romanbear

 

[William C]

Originally posted by The Archangel:
Bill: We are to consider ourselves dead to sin just as we should consider ourselves to have been "spiritually dead" before we were saved

Angel: That's not what it says. It declares us to have been spiritually dead not to consider ourselves spiritually dead.

No it doesn't say the word "consider" in Ephesians, but it also doesn't say the word "consider" in Rom. 6:2, but the point is Paul could be meaning to use the word dead as merely an analogy as he does in Romans. There is know way for us to know what Paul's intent was when he used the word "dead." We certainly can't be sure in light of Rom. 6:2 because it most definitately doesn't mean "total inability" in these passage.

Again, I'm troubled by some of the contexts that you seem to miss or gloss-over.

I'm not "glossing over" these texts, I see what you are saying but it doesn't really address the point. My point is that you have to speculate as to the author's intent when using the word dead, because he never links the word dead to total inability. In fact, we see in Rom. 6:2 that the word dead is used in a way that doesn't mean "total inability." Regardless, of Romans 6, however, even if Eph. 2 stood alone, there is no linking of total inablity to Paul's analogy of being dead, thus its mere speculation on your part. That is not a very solid foundation for a theological stance. What else do you got that supports "total inability"?

I am well aware that I am capable of that oversight too. However, in this instance, I think you have mixed the proverbial apples with the proverbial oranges. I will, however, keep studying to make sure that I am not missing something.

Wow, its been so long sense I heard a Calvinist use this type of language it really shocks my system. Can you rub off on Npetreley just a little bit? Your willingness to admit that you too can make errors, just as we all can, is a true sign of teachablity and sincerity. I like that! I am much more likely to learn something from you since you have approached this debate in a humble demeanor. Thanks you for that. And I'll keep looking for a link between the word "dead" and "total inablity," I just don't see it hear yet.

God Bless.
Bill

 

[Bible-belted]

Romanbear,

Such gratuitous asertions, so out of touch with reality as they are, are simply laughable. As is your theology.

Have you nothing of substance to contribute?

And yes that IS a rhetorical question.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:

I must admit, that is actually quite satisfying. But I would be even more satisfied if you'd change your mind and start basing your ideas on what the Bible says, and not what it DOESN'T say.

Things Calvinist on this thread have claimed to believe based upon what the scripture DOESN'T say:

1. Gentiles are hardened too, because the bible DOESN'T say they are not.

2. Everyone is saved like the apostles, because the bible DOESN'T say they are not.

3. Israel is "totally unable" to respond to the call of the gospel because they are hardened and because they were made "totally unable" do to the Fall, because the bible DOESN'T say that hardening is the only way that people are unable to respond.

Is that not the pot calling the kettle black?

Listen to this quote from you fellow Calvinist:

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...
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.

Notice that Sturgman is willing to objectively acknowledge that this is a two way street of "arguing from silence." I've always admitted that we all bring some assumptions to the text, the debate is which of these assumptions is more accurate in the view of the whole counsel of God's Word?

Therefore, my willingness to address your assumptions in light of your lack of willingness to address mine reveals either; your incompetence to handle my arguments, or just your apathtic laziness. Heaven forbid that you are forced to study arguments that don't fall within your normal range of Calvinistic "pat answers."

You have a lot to learn my friend.

 

[sturgman]

Though I agree with the few passages you brought up could be stretched to say more than one thing. But I hold to the fact that you interpret the molehills by the mountain, and not the mountain by the molehills. We interpret the things that are hard to interpret by the things that are easily intepreted.

We do come with assumptions to the text that you mentioned, not because we are misinformed, but because we see what the whole of scripture says about the character of God. Please note that this agreement that those few text could be a moot point, is not my agreement that the text does not speak of the sovereeign election of God.

In love,
sturgman

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Though I agree with the few passages you brought up could be stretched to say more than one thing. But I hold to the fact that you interpret the molehills by the mountain, and not the mountain by the molehills. We interpret the things that are hard to interpret by the things that are easily intepreted.

Ok, I understand.

Now can you please interpret these "molehills" for me:

You have claimed that everyone is "hardened" or "Total Unable" from birth due to the Fall of Man.

Do you believe that hardening and "Total Inability" are two completely different things, or one in the same?

If they are different, how are they different and why does Israel receive this "hardening" if in affect they were already made "totally unable" by the Fall of Man?

If they are the same, then why aren't the Remnant hardened due to the Fall and why is hardening spoken of as being "temporary?" And why aren't the Gentiles ever spoken of as being "hardened?"

I'm trying to understand how you see the many, many teachings of Israels being Hardened for the purpose of ingrafting the Gentiles as being a "molehill." It seems to me to be the "mystery" and the crux of the entire NT following Christ's Ascention. This should be the mountain that is used to interpret the rest of the scriptures, especially those that speak of man's "total inability."

Please explain your view. Thanks brother.

 

[romanbear]

Hi sturgman;
A quote from you;
---------------------------------------------
We interpret the things that are hard to interpret by the things that are easily intepreted.
---------------------------------------------
Truer words from a Calvinist I have never heard. Your problem is that You interpret what needs no interpretation. The Bible was meant to be taken at face value, not your interpretive value. The Holy Spirit reveals it mysteries . What makes you so special that you can interpret God's word. Or should I say Change it's meaning to suit your own thoughts
Romanbear

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by romanbear:
What makes you so special that you can interpret God's word. Or should I say Change it's meaning to suit your own thoughts

I am wondering the same thing about you, romanbear.