Calvinists, what is the purpose of...

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I'll keep waiting for someone to tackle this most insurmountable dilema for the Calvinistic dogma.

It doesn't matter how anyone responds. We have been through this before. You will always say that no one has responded to your argument. You will always move the goal post. Yada, yada, yada. I ain't going down that road again. That game is old. If you were an honest debater I would answer your challenge, but your history in this forum has proven you are not.

See ya.

</font>[/QUOTE]Ken, I apologize for being a deceptive and dishonest debater if indeed that is what I have been. If you do address my arguments I promise to you that I will not "move the goal post."

I honestly just want some substantive reply to these questions from a Calvinistic viewpoint. Pretend someone you actually like asked these questions, how would you answer then?

Dallas, I appreicate your posting the copy of the scripture but I do not see where these passages have answered my question. Could you expound so I can understand how you have applied these verses?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
If men are totally depraved, what is the purpose of...
1. Hiding the gospel from them in parables? (Matt. 13)
2. Hardening their hearts? (John 12)
3. Calling them to repentance and faith? (Mk. 1)

Okay, Brother Bill, here are my honest answers.

1. Perhaps so they will go deeper into rebellion against God to fulfill His purposes.
2. Perhaps so they will go deeper into rebellion against God to fulfill His purposes.
3. It is man's responsibility to repent and believe regardless of his status spiritually.

 

[Hardsheller]

Brother Bill,

If God hardens temporarily as you say, then He is guilty of violating man's free will to accomplish His purposes.

He certainly has every right to do this.

But If God violates man's free will through hardening to accomplish his purposes, how is this different from God electing a man to salvation, effectually calling that person, and giving that man the will to believe?

Perhaps you could give us a timeline or chart that would show your hardening theory in its historical context so we could grasp the total picture of God's hardening in the Scriptures.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:

1. Perhaps so they will go deeper into rebellion against God to fulfill His purposes.
2. Perhaps so they will go deeper into rebellion against God to fulfill His purposes.

Honestly, Ken, what is deeper than Total Depravity which teaches man is unable to believe, see, hear or even understand the things of God from birth? How do you make a blind man blinder still, or a deaf man deafer? It just doesn't make sense to me, does it to you?

3. It is man's responsibility to repent and believe regardless of his status spiritually.

Yes, but why call those who cannot respond? Why not just call those who can. Plus, how can a man be held responsible by his maker for not doing that which he has not been granted the ability to accomplish by his maker?

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Brother Bill,

If God hardens temporarily as you say, then He is guilty of violating man's free will to accomplish His purposes.

He certainly has every right to do this.

You're correct, it does seem to violate man's will but Paul explains that God remains just in doing this and he gives us the reasons in Romans 9, so I'm willing to overlook my human objection to hardening. However, I'm not willing to overlook the objection to Calvinism's teachings of Total Depravity and unconditional election because these verses are not responding to those objections eventhrough Calvinists like to apply these passages accordingly. So, the biblical teachings of hardening cause objections but I accept them because the scripture answers those objections, but I do not see Calvinism's teaching of Total Depravity in the scripture and I certainly don't see any passages that even attempt to answer the obvious objections to this teaching. In fact the objections to Total Depravity and unconditional election are far greater than the objections Paul anticipates toward his teachings concerning judicial hardening. It sure seems he would have addressed those objections if indeed he believed the way you do.

But If God violates man's free will through hardening to accomplish his purposes, how is this different from God electing a man to salvation, effectually calling that person, and giving that man the will to believe?

Perhaps you could give us a timeline or chart that would show your hardening theory in its historical context so we could grasp the total picture of God's hardening in the Scriptures.

I think I understand your question. You are saying that if God violate man's will through hardening then what is the difference with that and God violating man's will through Calvinism's teachings of TULIP, right?

There is a big difference:
1. People are hardened only after rejecting God. Notice that God had be patient with Israel holding out his hands to them and longing to save them. (Romans 10 and Matt. 23:37). Total depravity teaches that men are in a sense hardened from birth and have never even had an opportunity to follow God. Don't you see the difference? One teaching says God rejects those who continually reject him, the other says God rejects those before they have an opportunity to do anything.

2. Hardening is mentioned in scripture. Total Depravity is not.

3. Hardening is fully explained and expounded upon in scripture as being the reason that some cannot believe, see, understand and follow the gospel message of Christ. (John 12:37-41) Total Depravity is a systematized concept made by man. Scripture never says man is unable to believe or understand the gospel message except in regard to hardening.

4. As I have explained our human objections to hardening are reconciled in the text, but our human objections to TULIP are not.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
what is deeper than Total Depravity

The doctrine of total depravity does not teach that man is totally as bad as he can be. It teaches that our natural depravity is resident throughout the total person, i.e., there is no area untouched by the results of The Fall.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
The doctrine of total depravity does not teach that man is totally as bad as he can be.

Neither does the doctrine of hardening. So, what's your point?

 

[KenH]

I was replying to this statement of yours - "How do you make a blind man blinder still, or a deaf man deafer?"

 

[William C]

Your not understanding.

Total Depravity teaches that men are blind and deaf to the gospel. Hardening teaches the same thing.

My question is saying how can you make someone more blind to the gospel than they already are.

Your answer is saying that man is not as bad as he can be. That doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm not asking, "How do you make a bad person worse." I'm asking how you make a spiritually blind person blinder.

Make sense.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Just a note: No one has really ever addressed the first post of this thread.

Let me repost my question for you all:

If men are totally depraved, what is the purpose of...
1. Hiding the gospel from them in parables? (Matt. 13)
2. Hardening their hearts? (John 12)
3. Calling them to repentance and faith? (Mk. 1)

Brother Bill,

1. I don't think you have made a convincing case that Jesus deliberately hid the gospel from the people in parables.

I think He merely preached the Truths of the Kingdom in parables and they (the people) could not understand because of their depravity. He demonstrated to the Disciples in this passage and to us (later readers) that there were some (the elect) who could understand and many more (the non-elect) who would not and could not.

This is a powerful visual and verbal demonstration of the existance of an Elect people in the midst of the non-elect.

2. Hardening their hearts? (John 12) I do not think you can conclusively say that this was a positive act of God. Isaiah 6 indicates that God told Isaiah to preach in the midst of an already unbelieving nation. There was no indication that they (the Jews) could ever or would ever turn back to God.

The preaching of Isaiah is for the benefit of the elect or the remnant.

Jesus is quoting Isaiah here in John 12 to illustrate the depravity of mankind. It has been a continuous reality - as it was in Isaiah's day so it is in Jesus' day.

3. Calling them to repentance and faith? (Mk. 1)

Mark 1:15 "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

In Mark 1:15 We have a perfect example of the General Call of the Gospel. The Good News is preached to all men. All men everywhere are called upon to Repent and Believe. There is no report in Mark 1 that people repented and believed even though it was Jesus himself who was issuing this call! Amazing!

Then later in Mark 1:16 and following we see a perfect example of the Effectual Call of the Gospel to individuals. Jesus Calls specific individuals (the Disciples) and they respond. Amazing isn't it that not one turned him down.

 

[BobRyan]

HardSheller -
1. I don't think you have made a convincing case that Jesus deliberately hid the gospel from the people in parables.

I think He merely preached the Truths of the Kingdom in parables and they (the people) could not understand because of their depravity. He demonstrated to the Disciples in this passage and to us (later readers) that there were some (the elect) who could understand and many more (the non-elect) who would not and could not.

While I can not agree with Bill's application of God deliberately dooming Israel - There is some truth to Christ NOT sharing truth where He thinks it will not be accepted.

Luke 7 - we see "they rejected God's PURPOSE for them" and Christ declares the many ways in which He reached out to them. However He does not argue in that chapter "of course they could not help themselves since they were depraved and I did nothing to help them out of that problem nor did I Draw ALL mankind to Me".

Rather - Christ's mission begins in John 1 as "Light shining in darkness" - lighting "every man". "He CAME to HIS OWN" His own Sovereignly CHOSEN - and it was THEY who reject Him.

Instead of arguing "I came to many - MY OWN accepted Me but those who I did not sovereign select as MY OWN did not" the point is made "HE came to HIS OWN" sovereignly chosen by God "and HIS OWN received Him Not".

In John 16 Christ says that He is holding back EVEN from the Disciples "I HAVE MANY more things to say to you BUT YOU CAN NOT receive them now".

This is not Christ saying "you are depraved lost souls that I have not sovereignly drawn to me - so in your depravity you can not hear a word I say".

Far from it.

In Matt 16 Christ says "BLESSED are you Simon - flesh and blood has not revealed this to you BUT MY FATHER who is in heaven" - and YET - Christ has "MANY MORE" things to tell him and he is not ready.

IN Matt 16 we see Peter rejecting "the very next truth" and then is addressed as "Satan".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
1. I don't think you have made a convincing case that Jesus deliberately hid the gospel from the people in parables.

I think He merely preached the Truths of the Kingdom in parables and they (the people) could not understand because of their depravity.

Anyone who has ears should listen!" 10 Then the disciples came up and asked Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11 He answered them, "To know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given to him, and he will have more than enough. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 For this reason I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see, and hearing they do not listen or understand. 14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive. 15 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 hearts and turn back--and I would cure them. 16 "But your eyes are blessed because they do see, and your ears because they do hear! 17 For I assure you: Many prophets and righteous people longed to see the things you see, yet didn't see them; to hear the things you hear, yet didn't hear them. (Matt. 13)

37 Even though He had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in Him. 38 But this was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet, who said: Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.

Is that a strong enough case?

2. Hardening their hearts? (John 12) I do not think you can conclusively say that this was a positive act of God. Isaiah 6 indicates that God told Isaiah to preach in the midst of an already unbelieving nation. There was no indication that they (the Jews) could ever or would ever turn back to God.

Please read my last post, I have always maintained that only the unbelieving nation was hardened. Remember that was one of the reasons I listed that seperated it from Total depravity. TD is from birth, hardening is a result of continual refusal to heed God's calling.

As to the point that it is an act of God I will let the scripture speak for itself: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, or God gave them a spirit of stupor...

3. Calling them to repentance and faith? (Mk. 1)

Mark 1:15 "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

In Mark 1:15 We have a perfect example of the General Call of the Gospel. The Good News is preached to all men. All men everywhere are called upon to Repent and Believe. There is no report in Mark 1 that people repented and believed even though it was Jesus himself who was issuing this call! Amazing!

Was the reason that Jesus' Jewish audience didn't believe because they were Total Depraved or because they were hardened? The answer is:

This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.

People don't refuse to follow God because God didn't choose them, they refuse to follow because they are unwilling. (Matt. 23:37)

Then later in Mark 1:16 and following we see a perfect example of the Effectual Call of the Gospel to individuals. Jesus Calls specific individuals (the Disciples) and they respond. Amazing isn't it that not one turned him down.

I agree. I believe the divinly chosen messengers of God were effectually called to be his voice to the world. The "effectual calling" is in regard to the call to apostleship.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
While I can not agree with Bill's application of God deliberately dooming Israel - There is some truth to Christ NOT sharing truth where He thinks it will not be accepted.

Bob, you are misstating my view. I have never said the God deliberately doomed Israel. For goodness sake, have any of you all studied the doctine of judicial hardening???

1. God desired to save Israel but for the most part they were unwilling (Matt. 23:37)
2. God hardened them in their unwillingness in order to accomplish His purposes through them (i.e. Crucified Christ, ingrafting Gentiles etc)
3. The Ingrafting of the Gentiles was to provoke hardened Israel to jealousy so that some of them might also be saved. (Rom. 11)

God is seeking to save Israel even through their hardening process.

How is that interpreted as "deliberately dooming Israel??"

 

[Hardsheller]

Brother Bill,

Is The Following True?

1. Hardening is unbelief magnified.
2. Unbelief stems from a sinful nature.
3. A Sinful Nature comes from The Fall.
4. All Man since Adam have a Sinful Nature.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> HardSheller -
1. I don't think you have made a convincing case that Jesus deliberately hid the gospel from the people in parables.

I think He merely preached the Truths of the Kingdom in parables and they (the people) could not understand because of their depravity. He demonstrated to the Disciples in this passage and to us (later readers) that there were some (the elect) who could understand and many more (the non-elect) who would not and could not.

While I can not agree with Bill's application of God deliberately dooming Israel - There is some truth to Christ NOT sharing truth where He thinks it will not be accepted.

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]There is evidence that He held back much information until He was ready to dispense it. Luke 24:45 is clear evidence. That they (the disciples) in Luke 24:45 received this understanding supernaturally is also clear.

 

[William C]

Is The Following True?

1. Hardening is unbelief magnified.

I wouldn't put it that way. It's not like you can not believe more than you didn't believe before. Either you believe or you don't. Instead, I would say hardening is being sealed in unbelief. It's assuring their unbelief remains despite very convincing words and miracles that surround them.

2. Unbelief stems from a sinful nature.

Absolutely. We don't know God because we are sinful and separated from Him. This doesn't mean we cannot come to know God, just that we are not born knowing Him. God must reveal Himself to us. He does that through a variety of means. We don't not believe in something until it has been revealed to us.

For example, do you not believe in Zurborofozoms? What's that, you ask? Exactly, you can't not believe in something until you know and understand what it is. This is why Romans 1 is so significant. It tells us that the people knew God and understood what was clearly seen about God, therefore they were guilty of unbelief. This implies they would not be guilty of unbelief had they not know God or anything about God. Unbelief is one of the two replies man can have toward God's revelation of Himself.

3. A Sinful Nature comes from The Fall.
4. All Man since Adam have a Sinful Nature.

Yes, but the scripture never says that the sinful nature makes man totally unable to believe the revelation of God. Hardening teaches that. In other words, people aren't born hardened.

Notice in Romans 1 that the people are not born defiled and unbelieving. They became that way in time and then God "gives them over." Total Depravity suggests that man is born defiled and unbelieving but that is not what the text teaches. Yes, they are born separated from God and with a sinful selfish desire, but they are also born open to learn and recieve the truth by faith if the truth is provided to them.

"Raise up a child in the way they should go and they will not depart from it."

Why does Jesus use a child to demonstrate what we must become like in order to enter the Kingdom of heaven? Aren't children just as depraved as adults? NO. They have not been tainted and calloused by the sin of rebellion. Don't get me wrong. They are sinners in need of a Savior, but their hearts are not hard. They are open to faith. They are willing to believe truth.

 

[BobRyan]

Bill
Bob, you are misstating my view. I have never said the God deliberately doomed Israel. For goodness sake, have any of you all studied the doctine of judicial hardening???

1. God desired to save Israel but for the most part they were unwilling (Matt. 23:37)
2. God hardened them in their unwillingness in order to accomplish His purposes through them (i.e. Crucified Christ, ingrafting Gentiles etc)
3. The Ingrafting of the Gentiles was to provoke hardened Israel to jealousy so that some of them might also be saved. (Rom. 11)

God is seeking to save Israel even through their hardening process.

How is that interpreted as "deliberately dooming Israel??"

If God "needed Israel to crucify His Son" then He was "dooming them" to reject their Messiah and we could easily "blame God" for their rebellion.

But in fact - God did not "need Israel" to fail.

The only reason that Babylon captured Israel and then the Persians and then Greeks and then the Romans - was due to their rebellion.

God sent prophet after Prophet to them BEFORE that time - seeking to save them - to turn them away from rebellion.

EVEN in the days of John and Christ - He continued to plead with them to TURN from rebellion.

It was never "His purpose" to make them crucify His Son.


As our atoning sacrifice Christ had to pay "the price of sin for us" - We are not "crucified" on the cross to pay for our sins. He did not need to be crucified - what he needed was to "suffer the second death in our place".

The first death does not "count" as death in God's eyes EVEN if it is sufferred on the cross.

But the second death - is that which we can not "pay" and still go to heaven. Christ paid for US the death that we will never have to die. He died in our place.

God did not need "more rebellion" to save mankind.

Christ came as "the atoning sacrifice" for our sins "And not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world". 1John 2:2

Christ did not "need the help of the Jews or the Romans" to die in our place.

He died of a broken heart, He was already dying in Gethsemane, His death was not "natural" it was "supernatural". What we see Him suffering on the cross was a mere drop in the bucket - He was tasting the sufferings of death for "every man" Hebrews 2. He was suffering under the weight of the sins of the world - He paid for all of it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[William C]

Bob,

You continue to take my words too far. When did I say God "needed" Israel. I seemly pointed out that God used Israel's rebellion to bring about his purpose of redeemption. Notice that the prophets predict Israel's rebellion and the effects of it, which are that they crucify the Christ and opening the door for the ingrafting of the Gentiles which leads to provoking Israel to jealously so that they too might be saved.

God doesn't "need" anyone, but He most certainly chooses to use people and circumstances to accomplish His purpose.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Is The Following True?

1. Hardening is unbelief magnified.

I wouldn't put it that way. It's not like you can not believe more than you didn't believe before. Either you believe or you don't. Instead, I would say hardening is being sealed in unbelief. It's assuring their unbelief remains despite very convincing words and miracles that surround them.

The very word "Harden" carries the connotation of moving from a more fluid state to a less fluid state. As in concrete. It pours freely from the truck but sets up in a hardened state that is unyielding.

If an unbeliever is not hardened does he not possess more of an opportunity under your system of understanding and responding to the Gospel than does one who is hardened?

Cannot an individual through persistent and progressive sinning become hardened without any outward influence?

I still fail to see how Hardening by God is less of an affront to Free Will than Effectual Call by God.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
The very word "Harden" carries the connotation of moving from a more fluid state to a less fluid state. As in concrete. It pours freely from the truck but sets up in a hardened state that is unyielding.

Oh, I agree. Hardening is a process. One can be in a more hardened state than another, no doubt. But, someone who is just a little hardened does not believe more than someone who is very hardened. Neither of them believe, they are just at different points in the hardening process. My point is that men aren't born hardened, in that they are unable to see, hear, understand and believe as Total Depravity suggests. Hardening doesn't begin until one has been presented with the revelation of God and they understand it and refuse to repent and believe.

If an unbeliever is not hardened does he not possess more of an opportunity under your system of understanding and responding to the Gospel than does one who is hardened?

Sure. If you mean this question in the way I think you mean it.

Now, you need to remember there is different variations to hardening taught in the scripture. There is a teaching about becoming hardened by your own choices and desires and then there are teachings about God's active judicial hardening as we see with Pharoah and Israel for example. Self hardening is the result of willful rebellion in the face of God's clear and direct revelation of truth. Judicial hardening is God's active sealing of one in their hardened sinful rebellion in order to accomplish a purpose through them. One who was self hardened could be persuaded by outward influences, but one who was being Judicial hardened could not be influenced by any thing.

Cannot an individual through persistent and progressive sinning become hardened without any outward influence?

I think my last quote answered this question. Yes, someone can be self-hardened and not Judicially hardened by God, if that is what you mean.

I still fail to see how Hardening by God is less of an affront to Free Will than Effectual Call by God.

It's not so much the effectual call by God that is an "affront" to free will, its Total Depravity. TD is what teaches that man cannot believe the gospel because of his inborn nature imputed to him by God's design. It's the teaching that says, "God bound all men over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on the elect," that brings an "affront" to Free Will and the very nature of God.

Here is the difference in a nutshell:

Hardening teaches man becomes "unable" following his willful rebellion to that which he clearly sees and understands.

Total Depravity teaches man is born unable to do anything except willfully rebell against that which he cannot even begin to clearly see nor understand.