Deuteronomy 29

[Helen]

Of course not. I simply state that what Deuteronomy 29 says of the generation that entered was true, and what Hebrews 3 says of the previous generation which did not enter does not negate that truth.

You are missing the point. The writer to the Hebrews was using the generation who did NOT enter the Holy Land as an example to beware of to those who were in it later. He tells them not to harden their hearts. Therefore they have the ability to NOT harden their hearts, or to harden them, as each of them chooses.

Either that, or the writer to the Hebrews was writing nonsense.

 

[whatever]

No, it is you who is missing the point. The fact that those who died in the wilderness had hardened their hearts, and that the recipients of the Hebrews epistle could have hardened their hearts, does not negate the fact that God must give one a "heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" before understanding or seeing or hearing can occur, and it in no way says anything about which comes first. It is not "nonsense" just because you or I cannot put it all together.

 

[LeBuick]

I was reading through the book of Deuteronomy last night and came across this in chapter 29:

"And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; 3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: 4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."


What does that mean, "Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive..."

??

I guess to a Calvinist, this verse would be like looking at the past but seeing your future. As soon as the Lord opens your eyes, ears and heart you will understand... :laugh: :wavey:

 

[J.D.]

Are you serious? Or are you just trying to goad the free-willers into having to deal with this verse? It won't work - I've referred to this verse dozens of times and it hasn't made any difference.

I know it won't work on, say, Helen - but maybe somebody out there?

 

[Blammo]

No, it is you who is missing the point. The fact that those who died in the wilderness had hardened their hearts, and that the recipients of the Hebrews epistle could have hardened their hearts, does not negate the fact that God must give one a "heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" before understanding or seeing or hearing can occur, and it in no way says anything about which comes first. It is not "nonsense" just because you or I cannot put it all together.

How would it be "disobedience" if the option to obey does not exist?

 

[Helen]

How would it be "disobedience" if the option to obey does not exist?

EXACTLY! If God foreordains everything, then He has foreordained many to disobey Him. He even must have foreordained me to disagree with the idea that He foreordained me to disagree with that Reformed nonsense.

Getting back to the topic a little more closely, why would the writer to the Hebrews have BEGGED them NOT to harden their hearts as their ancestors did during the rebellion if they had no choice about the hardening of their hearts?

 

[npetreley]

How would it be "disobedience" if the option to obey does not exist?

The option to obey exists, but it is not in man's nature to obey. It is in man's nature to be disobedient.

I think the Calvinists on this board have explained this in detail so many times that it is intellectually dishonest for most free-willers to keep pressing this point. Some, maybe, are new to the boards. But surely the rest have read the explanation dozens of times.

Please stop accusing Calvinists of saying things like obedience isn't a choice, people do not choose, etc. Learn what Calvinism is about and understand it. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but stop redefining it in order to argue against it.

 

[Helen]

a 'choice' means at least two options are readily available and possible. Calvinists/Reformed folk seem to think that 'choice' means something like I have a choice about flying even though I have no wings and cannot possible fly! There is no choice there!

That is the same with Calvinist philosophy. They say man has a 'choice' regarding obedience to God or faith or whatever. However since his nature DEMANDS only one way, there is no choice at all in reality in that philosophy. All the choices are God's; therefore His warnings all through the Bible are nonsense since people cannot avoid their predestined fates anyway -- according to Calvinism.

That philosophy makes mash out of most of the Bible and totally denegrates God's character as He has revealed it to us there.

And so I would beg the Calvinists -- today, do not harden your hearts....

 

[npetreley]

a 'choice' means at least two options are readily available and possible. Calvinists/Reformed folk seem to think that 'choice' means something like I have a choice about flying even though I have no wings and cannot possible fly! There is no choice there!

For the gazillionth time, the choice is available and possible. But man simply does according to his nature, and refuses to make the right choice.

 

[J.D.]

If we think of salvation as a door, then God does not stand in it refusing anyone to enter that wishes to do so. In fact, God points to it and says "ENTER". But because man, in his fallen nature, has no wish to enter into the door, God, in mercy, chooses some to receive His Spirit, making the change of desire in man so that man now enters into the door of salvation. Else, all of man would be lost.

All the admonishions (sp?) of God, whether Commands or pleadings, are effective only in the regenerated elect, and are ineffective in the yet-to-be-regenerated elect, and will never be effective in the non-elect.

 

[J.D.]

And I should add, that the Commands and "pleadings, beggings, and tears" of God will witness against the rebels in the day of judgement. God's word serves it's purpose in the indictment of the sinner.

 

[Helen]

For the gazillionth time, the choice is available and possible. But man simply does according to his nature, and refuses to make the right choice.

and for the gazillionth and one time, if man's nature forbids he make any other choice on his own, there there is no real choice.

 

[npetreley]

and for the gazillionth and one time, if man's nature forbids he make any other choice on his own, there there is no real choice.

Says your human reasoning. God doesn't care about your human reasoning.

 

[J.D.]

This is from the statement of faith from Arlington Baptist College, seems to speak to the subject immediately at hand:

SECTION 10. OF THE FREENESS OF SALVATION


We believe in God's electing grace that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel; that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith; and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his own inherent depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel; which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation.


I Thes. 1:4; Col. 3:12; I Pet. 1:2; Titus 1:1; Rom. 8:29-30; Matt. 11:28; Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17; Rom. 10:13; John 6:37; Isa. 55:6; Acts 2:38; Isa. 55:7; John 3:15-16; I Tim. 1:15; I Cor. 15:10; Eph. 2:4-5; John 5:40; John 3:18; John 3:36.

 

[Blammo]

For the gazillionth time, the choice is available and possible. But man simply does according to his nature, and refuses to make the right choice.

Why does man refuse to make the right choice? Because he is not aware of the choice, or because he has been created without the ability to make the right choice? Either way, he has no choice. That's why I ask whether this is a question of obedience.

I am really trying to learn something. My mind is open as always.

 

[npetreley]

Why does man refuse to make the right choice? Because he is not aware of the choice, or because he has been created without the ability to make the right choice? Either way, he has no choice. That's why I ask whether this is a question of obedience.

I am really trying to learn something. My mind is open as always.

It isn't because he isn't aware of it, or at least given enough information to know "something" is there. Romans 1 eliminates total unawareness as a possibility (general revelation).

He has been created with the ability to make the right decision, but because of the fall, man's inherited nature is spiritually dead and emnity toward God. So man does not want to make the right choice even if every detail, advantage and disadvantage is spelled out for him by the best human evangelist in the world. So it's not a matter of being unable, and it's not a matter of not having the Gospel preached properly. Man chooses, but man chooses according to his nature, which is to choose himself over God, evil over righteousness, works over grace, etc. Man is ABLE to choose rightly, but the ONLY way for man to WANT to choose rightly is if someone changes his inclination. That's what regeneration is all about. Remember, like when you were convinced by the Holy Spirit? That.

At the extreme risk of getting tangled in an analogy instead of the facts, it's like a kid who hates broccoli. It is POSSIBLE for him to choose to eat broccoli. He has the ABILITy to choose to eat broccoli. He KNOWS that broccoli is available and that it is good for him. But given that the kid is allowed to do whatever he is inclined to do, without any correction or redirection from his parents, then he'll never choose to eat the broccoli. You can't say it's not a choice. You can't say it's impossible for him to eat it. You can't say he's unaware of it or the benefits. He just doesn't want it. Period.

Now, I'm aware that I started it, but please don't run with the analogy. I know it is flawed like any other analogy. I only used it to clarify the point, so please discuss the point and not the analogy.

 

[whatever]

Says your human reasoning. God doesn't care about your human reasoning.

:thumbs:

I was away from the BB for about three weeks. I'm not sure why I came back. It is really discouraging to try to discuss Scripture and take it seriously when there are so many who are willing to ignore or throw away a passage or pretend that it doesn't mean what it plainly says because they cannot understand how the plain meaning can fit with another passage or with their own reasoning. When what one can understand or reason becomes the measure of whether one accepts what the Scripture plainly says then one is in big trouble.

For Blammo, it is not God who keeps us from being able to obey, it is sin. We cannot overcome sin. Only God can, and we have no hope apart from His work in our hearts. Keep digging, and God bless.

 

[webdog]

Says your human reasoning. God doesn't care about your human reasoning.

...and He cares about yours?!?

 

[webdog]

It is really discouraging to try to discuss Scripture and take it seriously when there are so many who are willing to ignore or throw away a passage or pretend that it doesn't mean what it plainly says because they cannot understand how the plain meaning can fit with another passage or with their own reasoning.

Yeah, this NNNEEEEVVVVEEEERRR happens on the other side of the fence

 

[whatever]

Yeah, this NNNEEEEVVVVEEEERRR happens on the other side of the fence

It happens too often on "both sides of the fence". I never said otherwise.

What do you say about Deut. 29:4?