CALVINISM'S TEACHING OF TOTAL INABILITY IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
If God desires man to seek him and find him of man's own free-will, why was the Tower of Babel an issue with God?

What? Isn't it Calvinism that teaches man can't seek God because of the Fall. Now you're saying that the people in the tower were seeking God so God punished them for it? Your arguments are confusing at best. Please explain.

Because man was attempting to define God and worship through a totally depraved will of man. Thus God dispersed man, and Gentiles means nations, other than Israel.

I think the "assumption" stands as an example of Total Depravity of man as is permeated throughout scripture.

Uh? Again, were does it mention man's inability to "hear" or "see" the things of God as the scripture does for the Israelites in the texts that I have mentioned. There is no hardening spoken of in these passages. You're going to need to provide me some actual references in the text.

Otherwise, the 'free-will' choice of man to build a tower to the abode of God should have pleased the Creator; and would have if not initiated from the Depraved will of man. Total Depravity struck a death blow to the will of man, that only the Will of God can change.

Scripture support for this please.

I love you brother but you have no scripture to back up your claims, your starting to sound like some of the Arminians on this board.

With Respect,
Bill

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
If God desires man to seek him and find him of man's own free-will, why was the Tower of Babel an issue with God?

What? Isn't it Calvinism that teaches man can't seek God because of the Fall. Now you're saying that the people in the tower were seeking God so God punished them for it? Your arguments are confusing at best. Please explain.

I am saying these people were seeking God, but not according to God's Will. Their seeking was for the glory of man; were they not building a tower to heaven, where they would be with God, where (according to Arminianism God would have all men, according to their own free will choice to seek him. Yes, Calvinism says man will not seek God, because man cannot believe God is true, the but rather that man is the measure.

Because man was attempting to define God and worship through a totally depraved will of man. Thus God dispersed man, and Gentiles means nations, other than Israel.

I think the "assumption" stands as an example of Total Depravity of man as is permeated throughout scripture.

Uh? Again, were does it mention man's inability to "hear" or "see" the things of God as the scripture does for the Israelites in the texts that I have mentioned. There is no hardening spoken of in these passages. You're going to need to provide me some actual references in the text.

Otherwise, the 'free-will' choice of man to build a tower to the abode of God should have pleased the Creator; and would have if not initiated from the Depraved will of man. Total Depravity struck a death blow to the will of man, that only the Will of God can change.

Scripture support for this please.

I love you brother but you have no scripture to back up your claims, your starting to sound like some of the Arminians on this board.

With Respect,
Bill </font>[/QUOTE]The hardening of the Gentiles is resulted first because of the bondage of thier will, then there are times when this hardening is from God.

When Jonah preached to Ninevah, this place repented, but later was destroyed, why?

I believe the hardening of these is throughout scripture both O.T. and N.T. Romans 1 comes to mind; I think you know these things, though, and only want to push the question. Unless your focus on the election of the Prophets and Apostles has gone to seed and you can't see anything in scripture because of it.

I love you too, God knows my heart, if it sounds Arminian to you, it is because you are searching for something whereby to provoke me to envy, which then would be the result of an outside force upon my own spirit and will, even as Paul spoke of his kinsman according to the flesh.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[rufus]

See my last post in the Free Will Questions thread, ya'll. Thanks

rufus

 

[sturgman]

You did it again, you make the debate over the hardening of Israel. The debate is really over the notion that you think the gentiles were not hardened. That is how your try to convince everyone. You say, "Don't look at the man behind hte curtain, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Let us talk about simple investigative reading, be it scripture or not. We will use Mark Twain again for consistancy. Is Huck Finn the only boy who lived on the Mississippi? By reading Mark Twain you could make the arguement he is the only one. But that is bad logic. Unless the statement is made that Huck Finn is the only boy that lived on the Mississippi, then you cannot make that assumption. In the same way, you can make the arguement that Israel is hardened. But you cannot then, jump to the conclusion that the gentiles are not hardened. Romans 1 speaks of the depravity of man.(gentiles) It says in 3 that NO MAN will seek God. If no man will seek God, who is left to seek after God? Yet because the bible speaks of the hardening of Israel, you jump to the conclusion that the gentiles, despite other scripture that speaks of the nature of the gentiles, you believe they are not hardened.

That is bad exegesis, and I cannot figure out if you know it, or if you truly believe it is good exegesis.

Your arguement is that if you can apply a doctrine to one group in scripture then it cannot apply to any other group, and therefore makes that doctrine limited. That is a bad working of scripture. If the apostles are saved through the choice of God, and it never says we are saved in a different manner, then we must assume that all men are saved in the same manner. If scriptures say that both gentiles and jews are in the same spiritual condition, and it says that God hardened the Israelites, we must assume that all men are hardened. Pharoh after all was not a jew, yet God clearly hardened his heart. There is one example of a gentile hardened, yet you provide no proof that the gentiles are not hardened. The verse in Acts 28 says that the gentiles will also listen. What does also mean? Yet if you mean that all gentiles will listen, then you are mistaken. All gentiles have not listened. So maybe there are some jews that listen, and some gentiles that listen. Maybe it is because God gave them ears to hear, eyes to see.

You have to assume what you are disproving to win your arguement.

Thanks,
sturgman

 

[Ray Berrian]

If God autocratically 'hardened souls, at will' there would be no use for this alleged, Divine work, because Total Depravity would would have kept them 'Totally Unable' to understand and believe the Gospel. But, when sinners continually understand and reject Christ He will at His own discretion harden their souls.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Acts 28 says that the gentiles will also listen.

Actually it says that they will hear it, not that they will "listen" to it, and certainly nothing even close to that they will "choose to listen" to it. The greek word is where we get our word acoustics - sound.

Acts 28:28 "Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!"

It's the same greek word used in this verse (emphasis mine):

Acts 21:22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.

And it is also the same as the word translated "hear" in this verse, (emphasis mine):

John 5:28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice

I'd like to know how the people who are dead in their graves could "listen" of their own free will.

Let's put the ability to "hear" in scriptural context once again:

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing [comes by] the word of God"

"Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day."

Note that this last one from Deut 29 does not describe hardening, which is to make a condition worse. This says they didn't have the ability because God didn't give it to them.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sturgman:
Acts 28 says that the gentiles will also listen.

Actually it says that they will hear it, not that they will "listen" to it, and certainly nothing even close to that they will "choose to listen" to it. The greek word is where we get our word acoustics - sound. </font>[/QUOTE]Many translators disagree. The word in this context could be "listen," as the NIV and several other translations render in their translations of this text.

Plus, you avoid the most significant part of this passage in Act 28. Notice what verse 28 is contrasting to:

28:26
when He said, Go to this people and say: 'You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive.

28:27
For this people's heart has grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted--and I would heal them.'

28:28
Therefore, let it be known to you that this saving work of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!"

Notice this passage sets the Gentiles up in contrast to the Israelites. According to verse 26 the Israelites listen but never understand.

Why? There hearts have grown calloused. They are blinded, deaf or HARDENED! What if they weren't hardened?

"Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted--and I would heal them." If not for their hardening they "MIGHT" understand and be converted.

Then the Gentiles are presented in contrast to the Israelites by saying that Salvation has been sent to the Gentiles! And once again the contrast by saying "and they will listen!"

This passage contradicts everything you're trying to prove. The only way you can support your view is by ignoring how verse 28 is contrasted with verses 26-27, and playing sematical games with the word "listen" or "hear" either way the point does not change. The Gentiles are contrasted with Hardened Israel as being ones who "might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, so that God can heal them."

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing [comes by] the word of God.

I know what you really want this text to mean, but it doesn't. It says:
So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.

This means that faith comes from hearing the gospel and the gospel was given to us by the words of Christ. That is all this passage means, nothing more. But even if it did mean that faith ultimately comes from the Word of God, who would disagree with that? The Words of God, which is the gospel, brings faith to those who hear it. The Gentiles will hear it, while Hardened Israel will not!

"Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day."

Note that this last one from Deut 29 does not describe hardening, which is to make a condition worse. This says they didn't have the ability because God didn't give it to them.

Oh contrayer! Look again Npetreley! Paul disagrees with you. He uses this passage in Deut 29:3-4 combined with Is. 29:10 and applies both of them to the Hardening of Israel in Rom. 11:8. Try again.

You're not going to wiggle your way out of these passages like you have attempted to do with others. You are clearly trying to dig your way out of a hole that scripture won't let you out of and in the process you are only damaging the text. I suggest you study and find out how "your Calvinistic scholars" handle these issues before you dig yourself any deeper by making up a defense that you haven't fully researched.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Many translators disagree.

Then they'd be wrong. That includes the NIV, which, IMO, does have numerous translation errors. As I demonstrated from the context of other verses with the exact same usage of the word, it is "hear".

28:26 when He said, Go to this people and say: 'You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive.

This actually destroys your case beyond recognition. The words mistranslated here as "listen" and "listen" are "akoh" and "akousete".

"akoh" and "akousete" specifically refer to the sense of hearing, as in:

1 Corinthians 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where is the hearing? (akoh)

So the verse is saying that they will hear as in hear the words, but they will not comprehend the words.

Notice this passage sets the Gentiles up in contrast to the Israelites. According to verse 26 the Israelites listen but never understand.

Yes, it sets up the Gentiles to receive the preaching of (hear) the Gospel. It's a shift in focus as to whom the (audible) hearing of word goes.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing [comes by] the word of God.

I know what you really want this text to mean, but it doesn't. It says:
So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]No it doesn't. Once again, you ignore the Greek. It says faith comes by hearing (akohV) and hearing (akoh) by the utterance of God. The Greek for "word" is not "logos", it is "rhmatoV", which refers specifically to something someone says. Here it is again, same word, same form:

11:16 Then remembered I the word (rhmatoV) of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
[qb] This means that faith comes from hearing the gospel and the gospel was given to us by the words of Christ.

No it doesn't. Now you're REALLY stretched it beyond its limits without offering a single word to support your eisegesis. You've changed "audible hearing" to "hearing the gospel", and "utterance of God" to "gospel given to us by the words of Christ". But that isn't what it says at all. It says, well, exactly what it says: Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Anything you add to that is your own.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
[QB]Oh contrayer! Look again Npetreley! Paul disagrees with you. He uses this passage in Deut 29:3-4 combined with Is. 29:10 and applies both of them to the Hardening of Israel in Rom. 11:8. Try again.

Actually the word "hardened" in the NIV is closer to meaning "made stupid" or "blinded". But now we simply have a difference of opinion about what Paul is saying with reference to what "hardening" is about.

To explain: There are two events here. Deut 29 describes a situation where God does not give the ability. Isaiah 29 describes when God actively puts the people into a stupor. The former is foreordained of necessity - if God doesn't give something, the result still comes to pass. So if you want to say Deut 29 is God's hardening, as though it was active when it was not, that's fine with me, since the blindness/deafness still must "be" of necessity.

Some people don't like to think of it that way because it implies double-predestination (if God deliberately fails to save some, it is the same as actively sending them to hell). I don't have a problem with that, and IMO, neither does Paul, which is why I think he feels perfectly comfortable combining the two.

Regardless, I'll gladly concede that Deut 29 describes hardening if you like, but that it isn't active hardening (he doesn't make them deaf - he simply does not give them the ability to hear). That's what my point was, anyway, since I was dealing with the word for "hear", that it means the ability to hear, and that it is given or withheld by God.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Romans nine was not entered into the Word of God in order to tell us that God is dividing His created beings into two groups, the elect and the majority-non-elect.

With reference to Pharaoh He is telling us why he chose him for this Divine plan. Pharaoh was lost/damned all the time because he did not receive Christ. [John 1:12; John 3:18b] God did not need to 'harden' Pharaoh in order to send him to destruction; he was on his way their from birth because of the Adamic nature.

God, only, used Pharaoh for these two reasons. 'Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and {secondly} that My Name might be declared throughout the earth.' There are no superlatives here to even hint that Almighty God was trying to damn him.

Calvinists implicate God as being the one who 'hardened' Pharaoh. The balanced and wise view is that Pharaoh hardened his own heart and then God hardened Pharaoh's attitude toward God.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Exodus 8:15, 19, 32. 9:7, 34, 35 and I Samuel 6:6.

Then God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Exodus 7:13; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27 11:10 and 14:8.

God hardened the heart of Pharaoh toward the Hebrew people and would not let them go. This is why the Lord used the plagues.

There is no hint as to God selecting human kind for such an awful fate/Providence as a flaming and literal Hell.

 

[sturgman]

Ray, you said it yourself, Pharoh was going to hell because of his adamic nature. So your right, God is "sending no one to hell" man does that. If God, being gracious, saves one, that is an act of mercy. But He didn't, He saved many. Thanks for your support in the matter.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
You did it again, you make the debate over the hardening of Israel. The debate is really over the notion that you think the gentiles were not hardened.

Knock, Knock....who is there?..........SCRIPTURE........Scripture who?...........Scripture that says Israel is hardened and contrasts them with the Gentiles who are not! (Acts 28:28; Matt. 21:41-43)

I'm only stating what scripture clearly says: "Israel is hardened," you are making an unsupported claim that the Gentiles are hardened too. You're always saying to the Arminians, "Where is your proof of free will, its never specifically mentioned in the text." Right? Ok, so where is your proof that Gentiles are hardened? You're avoiding the debate.

That is how your try to convince everyone. You say, "Don't look at the man behind hte curtain, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

First, I obviously haven't convinced everyone. Second, who is the "man behind curtain." I know that's a reference to the Wizard of Oz who was tricking his visitors into thinking he was something his is not. What does that have to do with our discussion.

You and Npetreley seem to think that if a person is educated, knowledgable of the scripture and actually has the audacity to disagree with you then he must be deceitful or tricky. What am I being deceitful about here? I've presented the scriptures and and asked you to explain them within your system of belief, you obviously can't do that so instead you insist that I'm "bad" wizard? Come on. Is that you defense?

Let us talk about simple investigative reading, be it scripture or not. We will use Mark Twain again for consistancy. Is Huck Finn the only boy who lived on the Mississippi? By reading Mark Twain you could make the arguement he is the only one. But that is bad logic. Unless the statement is made that Huck Finn is the only boy that lived on the Mississippi, then you cannot make that assumption. In the same way, you can make the arguement that Israel is hardened. But you cannot then, jump to the conclusion that the gentiles are not hardened.

Ok? I'll go along with you, I guess.

If Mark Twain would have wrote:
"Huck Finn rebelled against his parents again and again, until finally his heart was hardened to anything that was good, to the point he was unable to even hear and understand his parents instructions, otherwise he might hear them and obey. So his parents focused their love and support to their other child, Jack who will listen to them." I would assume that Jack has an opporuity that Huck has missed, the opportunity to hear listen and obey his parents. OK?

Romans 1 speaks of the depravity of man.(gentiles) It says in 3 that NO MAN will seek God. If no man will seek God, who is left to seek after God?

I've never argued that man seeks out God. God has sought out us. How? By sending Christ and then the apostles to spread the gospel to all mankind. The preaching of the gospel is God's way of continuing the work of Christ which was, "To seek and to save that which is lost." (not seek and to save that which is elect)

Yet because the bible speaks of the hardening of Israel, you jump to the conclusion that the gentiles, despite other scripture that speaks of the nature of the gentiles, you believe they are not hardened.

You obviously don't know what the term "hardening" means in these biblical passages. Let me quote for Walter Elwell, who I believe is Calvinistic:

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure; it is hard, but not necessarily hardened. Hardening of the heart goes the tragic obtruseness of our inherited condition....Israel's hardening as a nation represents a special set of circumstances...For Paul, Israel's hardening paved the way to a ministry to the Gentiles and was not intending by God to be final, but only until the full number of the Gentiles had come in; then all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:25-27)"

Not only is Israel's "hardening" not a result from the Fall, but it is "temporary." You assume that the Gentiles and Israel are hardened from the Fall and will continually stay hardened. Both of those assumptions are contradicted in the text. The Gentiles are never hardened, because they have not rejected God's covenant at that point, and Israel was only hardened for a period of time so as to graft in the Gentiles. How can these teachings be reconciled to your beliefs?

That is bad exegesis, and I cannot figure out if you know it, or if you truly believe it is good exegesis.

Wow! I can't even believe after looking at what you have done to these passages that you are accusing me of poor exegesis. Amazing.

The verse in Acts 28 says that the gentiles will also listen. What does also mean?

No the word "also" is not in this text.

28:28
Therefore, let it be known to you that this saving work of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!"

Yet if you mean that all gentiles will listen, then you are mistaken.

Of course, not all gentiles will believe. Some of them will respond to God's calling others after considering the cost will not. The verse in Acts. 28 says "otherwise they might hear, see and understand..." Notice the word "might." It in no way says they absolutely will.

All gentiles have not listened. So maybe there are some jews that listen, and some gentiles that listen. Maybe it is because God gave them ears to hear, eyes to see.

Yes, there are some Jews who will listen. According to scripture the Jews who are not hardened are called the Remnant (Roman 11). Why are you using the word "maybe"? The scripture clearly says that Israel (except the Remnant) has blinded eyes and deaf ears but that the Gentiles will hear. (Acts 28:28)

You have to assume what you are disproving to win your arguement.

What? What am I disproving? That the Gentiles are not hardened? That burden is on you because the scripture never says they are "hardened". I've already shown that in several passages where the Gentiles are contrasted to a Hardened Israel. I've now quoted a scholar who holds to your view of Soteriology who disagrees with you. And on top of all that you still have no scripture that speaks of the Gentiles as being hardened as were the Israelites. You are the one making a new assumption. Not even MacArthur or Spoul to my knowledge teach that the Gentiles were "hardened" as you have stated. If I'm wrong on that, I'll stand corrected, but I'm quite certain that they at least acknowledge the "unique active hardening" of Israel.

You need to so some more research on this subject before you dig yourself in any deeper.

With Respect,
Bill

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Ray, you said it yourself, Pharoh was going to hell because of his adamic nature. So your right, God is "sending no one to hell" man does that. If God, being gracious, saves one, that is an act of mercy. But He didn't, He saved many. Thanks for your support in the matter.

If man has the power to send himself to hell, which is a spiritual place - no man has been there and lived, then man has the power to believe and accept Jesus which is "the Way" defined in scripture to enter heaven and everlasting life. Notice that I did not say that man has the power to get to heaven, but only to believe in the one who does have the power to takes you to heaven.

 

[William C]

Npetreley,

In your response you spent most of your time speaking about the two points that I said were really irrelevant.

The debate between "hearing" or "listening" is mere symentantics to distract from the issue. I could list about 3 sources that disagree with you about this, but on the other hand I could find a few that support you too. My point is IT DOES NOT MATTER. Nor does the Roman 10 passage matter in regard to this discussion, as I stated in my last post. So let's get back to the issues that are being avoided.

Here are the keys points that you failed to address:

1. Israel was Hardened, meaning they could not see, hear, understand or turn to God even with the gospel being presented all around them.

2. The Gentiles were not Hardened, as was Israel, therefore what Paul and the others say concerning Israel's hardening does not apply to the Gentiles. They can hear, they can see and they can believe and be converted. Hardened Israel, for a temporary time, cannot. No passages of scripture contradict this fact.

3. This Hardening of Israel is not consistant with Calvinism's teaching of Total Depravity. If we are all "Totally unable" to respond to the gospel because of the Fall of man; then the unique and temporary hardening of Israel makes no sense.

Questions for you:
1. Why harden a group of people who, according to you, are already hardened by the Fall?
2. Why specify that the hardening is only temporary if indeed it is an inate and unalterable part of man's fallen nature as Calvinism insists?
3. Why are Gentiles presented in contrast with the Hardened Israel as ones who can hear, see, turn and be healed by God, while hardened Israel cannot?
4. If both Gentiles and Israel are hardened, why would it be necessary for the prophets and the apostles to even mention that Israel was specifically hardened? If it is a common state of all man, why limit the teachings to only one group for a temporary time?
5. What is the purpose of the "hardening" of Israel in the ingrafting process if Gentiles cannot respond to the call of the message any more than Israel can? And what role does the remnant play if all men are "hardened" in the same way?

Your views don't seem to reconcile with the teachings of Israel's hardening. Please explain.

Thanks,
Bill

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
In your response you spent most of your time speaking about the two points that I said were really irrelevant.

I see. Because you say they're irrelevant, they must be irrelevant. Have you had these delusions of grandeur for long?

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The debate between "hearing" or "listening" is mere symentantics to distract from the issue.

Not in the least. You are using the phrase "the Gentiles will listen" to prove something, but the phrase doesn't say "the Gentiles will listen" it says "the Gentiles will hear". The Bible gives special treatment to the word "hear", as I pointed out.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
My point is IT DOES NOT MATTER. Nor does the Roman 10 passage matter in regard to this discussion, as I stated in my last post. So let's get back to the issues that are being avoided.

Translation: "Your exegesis destroyed my premise, so my only choice at this point is to dismiss it as irrelevant and go back to my original assertion as if you never said anything."

 

[William C]

Are you are seriously splitting hairs over the words HEARING and LISTENING?

And you make fun of me for looking at pronouns!

This is silly. Ok, smarty what is the greek word for "listening" and some examples of that in contrast to "hearing?" And after you get off that tangent could you answer my other arguments, or is your whole Theological system resting on how someone translates the word "hear/listen?"

Here is the reason I don't think it really matter to this debate:

I was at a Billy Graham rally and I heard the message.
OR
I was at a Billy Graham rally and I listened to the message.

Are you saying that the word "listen" seems to connote a sense of understanding of what your hearing? Or an act of the will? Like he purposefully listened to the message as apposed to he heared the gun shot. I can see the difference your trying to show, but you're ignoring the context: Look at this sentence as an example:

I was at a Billy Graham concert and I could not hear the message because I was being distracted by Npetreley.
But my friend John, who was not being distracted, heard the message.

What is this sentence communicating? I did not have the ability to hear but John, in contrast, did. That in no way means that he must believe, only that he has the opportunity to hear, understand and turn as the texts says could happen if one was not being distracted.

Do you see the contrast here. One has the ability to hear while the other does not. But in the biblical texts there is so much more than hearing that is involved. What about Israel's inability to:
1. See
2. Understand
3. Turn, or convert, or believe and thus be healed by God

Hardened people cannot do any of these three things. In contrast, one who is not hardened would possess these abilities. It does not mean that all of those who are not hardened will believe, it just means that they will have an opportunity to believe.

So, I'll even go with the word "hearing" instead of "listening" for now. The arguments I've made still must be addressed.

With Respect,
Bill

 

[npetreley]

epakroaomai
from epi and akroathV
to listen (intently)

Acts 16:25 But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.

The difference is significant. To listen implies active interest and participation on the part of the listener, as is the case in Acts 16:25. That is why you want the verse to say "the Gentiles will listen", because using the word "listen" implies that they "hear/understand" because they are interested and apply their will to receive the information.

But the words "hear" and "hearing" are passive on the part of the hearer. In some cases, it simply refers to whether or not you have the sense of hearing (or ability to hear or understand). This is especially true of the form used in Romans 10:17. In some cases it means you heard something but didn't have a clue that it was even speech. But these are all passive - you either have the ability or you don't. Either the sound registers in your ear or it doesn't. Your will has nothing to do with whether or not you hear.

In Acts 28:28 "hear" speaks to the fact of hearing, not the intent or will of the listener, or whether the hearer understands. I illustrated this by comparing it to another verse that uses the same word and same form. In John 5:25 the dead in their graves hear. Even if the language of the verse wasn't plain enough to understand it is passive on the part of the dead, as far as I know, dead people in their graves do not apply their will to listen intently.

So Acts 28:28 does not support your conclusion.

You may enjoy pretending this distinction is as silly as pronounism, but unlike pronounism, I bring no assumptions to the text. The words and definitions are what they are. I do not need any elaborate explanations of how Paul says something in chapter 28 that points back to a comment 2 chapters earlier, and therefore suggests "hear" must mean something other than the obvious definition of "hear", which will become clear if you only stand on your head, look through a green filter and squint your eyes.

 

[William C]

akouo {ak-oo'-o}
1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf

2) to hear

b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said

c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said

3) to hear something

a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence

b) to get by hearing learn

c) a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn

d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher

e) to comprehend, to understand
AV - hear 418, hearken 6, give audience 3, hearer 2, misc 8; 437

Verses where this word is used: (I just limited my search to Act and John)
-----------------------
And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
----------------------
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear [it] again? will ye also be his disciples?
-----------------
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me
Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
---------------

The only significant difference in these words in that context is that “epakroasomai” is in past tence (they contain the same root). The words are used interchangeably with both meaning throughout the entire bible. Yes the word “hear” above can have other meaning but not in this context. Which is why I have said this debate is fruitless! (NASB, NIV and many more disagree with you. The others that don't make the distinction like the KJV use this word interchangable depending on the context.)
-------------------------------
epakroaomai
Tense/Stem Info for 5711 Go to Act 16:25
5711 Tense - Imperfect See 5775
Voice - Middle or Passive Deponent See 5790
Mood - Indicative See 5791
Count – 184
Strong's Number 1874 matches the Greek
For the unrelated Hebrew word for 01874 (Darqown)
1) to listen to


Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 19:10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 19:28 And when they heard [these sayings], they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians. (Heathens can “listen” too)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Explain how these verses have differing meaning?

Bill

 

[Ray Berrian]

It is true that Pharaoh went to hell, partially because of his Adamic nature as all siners will if they do not believe in Jesus and His work at the Cross. Pharaoh went to Hell also because he refused to believe in Jehovah Lord, in spite of all the miracles seen through the various plagues. The light went on in his brain, I'm sure, but he refused to give up his power in Egypt and he thought he could go as it were, 'toe to toe' with the Lord God. Pharaoh was mistaken!

Our position, that is grounded in the truth, is that just because we have an Adamic nature, does not mean that have an 'Inability' to understand the Gospel and to believe in Jesus and His saving benefits accomplished at the Cross.

Apart from holding to a dogmas, I don't think any one really believes that man is unable to think and respond to the Lord.

 

[npetreley]

Bill, that isn't even close to being a proper word study. But I don't really care anymore. Make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

 

[Brutus]

When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man.Now there is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does.But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God,then even his"virtue"is evil in the sight of God.Rom.14:23 says,"Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."Now thia is a radical indictment of all natural"virtue"that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace.The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men.Rom.14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily,and only secondarily in relation to man.Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity.