Did God ever prevent people from believing the gospel?

[ReformedBaptist]

That doesn't address the question John. It sounded real good though. All you told us is that God doesn't have to give man the ability to respond in order for a man to be responsible for responding. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. However, I think it should be noted that the very word "responsible" comes form two root words, "response" and "able," literally meaning "able to respond," thus it seems for you to support your position you need to redefine this word, or at the very least use another word.

Actually, I thought his point was spot on. It addressed an assumption often made by Arminians/Non-Calvinists that for man to be responsible he must be able.

 

[Skandelon]

My answer without detail to the OP:

What if God chooses to blind people by leaving them in their depraved nature? Or
How does God blind people?

Is it that He goes into them and covers their heart in darkness, or does He have to try to prevent them from coming to Himself so they wont be saved?

Or is it because He leaves them in utter darkness where they already chose to go by sin because that was their destiny?

Are you Jewish? I ask because they are known for responding to questions with a question. :smilewinkgrin:

I'll respond in kind, with two questions:

1. Does it seem to be unjust for God to temporarily blind an already rebellious person from knowing the truth so as to accomplish a greater good for all mankind?

2. Does it seem unjust for God to permanently blind a man from birth because of the sin of Adam never giving them the ability to willingly receive the gift of grace?

My answers:

1. Kind of, yes, it does seem a little unjust, however the bible explains and justifies this and thus I accept it. This is actually the question Paul is answering in Romans 9-11 and so I am willing to swallow this.

2. Definitely! This seems repulsive to me. Even Calvinists like RC Sproul and JI Packer admit the difficulty of this belief and the natural repulsion to it. They accept it because they think the bible justifies it, but in reality the bible is only justifying the first diatribe rebuttal, not the second.

Now, before you said it, I agree that God would be just to send everyone to hell, but that is not the point. That is the rebuttal Calvinists always use in this discussion, but this is not about what God would be just in doing, its about what the bible reveal about what He IS doing.

 

[Skandelon]

Actually, I thought his point was spot on. It addressed an assumption often made by Arminians/Non-Calvinists that for man to be responsible he must be able.

That may spot on if we were actually discussing that assumption, but we are not. But, since you all brought it up I pointed out that you need to either find a new word or redefine it, because it literally means "response-able." Maybe you should use the word "accountable," though that could be debated as well.

 

[Skandelon]

Not at all. Use of the word "responsibility" no more supports one side of the calvinist argument than the other, any more than than one's use of the word "disaster" (from the root words "bad star") would indicate a belief in astrology.

To reiterate: God opening a man's heart does not preclude a man's responsibility to accept or reject the gift of salvation. The mainline Calvinist position does not compromise God's soveriegnty, nor does it preclude man's accountability.

Fine. I concede that you as a Calvinist believe this.

To reiterate: This does not address the question of this thread: "WHY WOULD GOD DO THESE THINGS TO PREVENT MEN FROM BELIEVING, IF INDEED ALL MEN ARE BORN UNABLE TO WILLINGLY BELIEVE?"

Try to stay on topic.

 

[Johnv]

Skandelon, you're making much ado about a word's origin to make an issue out of something I neither said nor addressed. See my earlier comment on the word "disaster" (root words being "bad star") not being an indicator of someone's belief in astrology.

And, IMO, my comment does indeed address the topic. It isn't the answer you're looking for, but it addresses the topic.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, you're making much ado about a word's origin to make an issue out of something I neither said nor addressed. See my earlier comment on the word "disaster" (root words being "bad star") not being an indicator of someone's belief in astrology.

And, IMO, my comment does indeed address the topic. It isn't the answer you're looking for, but it addresses the topic.

It's on the topic of Calvinism/Arminianism, but it in no way addresses the question of this post. I've notice you have a tendency of doing this in many of your posts John. Are you who they are talking about when they use the term "Forum Troll?"

 

[Johnv]

Accusing someone of being a troll doesn't help your argument. It does indeed addresses the question of this post. You're simply not happy with the answer.

 

[Skandelon]

Accusing someone of being a troll doesn't help your argument.

But if the forum shoe fits...

It does indeed addresses the question of this post. You're simply not happy with the answer.

Explain how your comment addresses my question please.

 

[Johnv]

But if the forum shoe fits.

The only shoe that fits here is the infantile accusation shoe which you're now wearing. Not to mention how weak the wearing of such a shoe makes your argument look.

Now, answer the question or go start your own post please.

It's been answered. You simply don't like the answer.

You're proceeding from an assumption that a calvinist view precludes man's responsibility to accept salvation, resulting in the conclusion that calvinism must be rejected (stemming from the idea that God opens/closes a man's heart rather than man open his heart to God). However, God opening a man's heart does not preclude a man's responsibility to accept or reject the gift of salvation. The mainline Calvinist position does not compromise God's soveriegnty, nor does it preclude man's accountability. They are not mutually exclusive concepts, and it is not necessary to reject calvinism to hold man responsible for his own action in regards to accepting the gift of salvation, or opening his heart thereto.

 

[Skandelon]

You're proceeding from an assumption that a calvinist view precludes man's responsibility to accept salvation, resulting in the conclusion that calvinism must be rejected (stemming from the idea that God opens/closes a man's heart rather than man open his heart to God).

Actually, in this post I'm presuming Calvinism's premise that all men are born totally blind and inquiring as to reason why God would need to further blind those in that condition. Can you answer that question please.


We can talk about your points on another thread if you would like, but as I have said, you have yet to answer THIS question.

 

[Rippon]

Actually, in this post I'm presuming Calvinism's premise that all men are born totally blind and inquiring as to reason why God would need to further blind those in that condition. Can you answer that question please.


We can talk about your points on another thread if you would like, but as I have said, you have yet to answer THIS question.

Why did God further harden the heart of Pharaoh?

 

[Skandelon]

Why did God further harden the heart of Pharaoh?

As a non-Calvinistic we don't believe men are born totally hardened/blind and thus this is not really addressing the question at hand. However, I would answer this way:

Pharaoh didn't want to lose his slave labor and he did not believe in the God of the Israelites, God didn't have to make him believe this way, that was his free decision. When Moses came to Pharaoh with all these plagues and signs, if left alone, he probably would have been convinced to let the Israelite go after a few of the plagues. However, God, wanting to teach a historical lesson through the passover and make His power known throughout the world, didn't want him to let the Israelites go until that purpose had been accomplished. Thus, God blinded him from the obvious truth that the plagues revealed so as to keep his will hardened in unbelief.

Consequently, I believe this is the same reason God hardened the Jews during the days of Christ. And I believe it is the historical context of this national hardening that confuses people today when reading the scripture and has lead them to erroneous interpretations such as Calvinism.

 

[Johnv]

Actually, in this post I'm presuming Calvinism's premise that all men are born totally blind and inquiring as to reason why God would need to further blind those in that condition.

The problem is with the "one or the other" conclusion. Being blind does not mean one cannot be made blind for a specific purpose. That's like saying being born in a state of sin means that you can't sin any more than you already are in a state of sin. Being born blind and being blinded are not any more mutually exclusive than being born with original sin and sinning are mutually exclusive.

 

[Skandelon]

The problem is with the "one of the other" conclusion.

Huh? What do you mean?

Being blind does not mean one cannot be made blind for a specific purpose.

Calvinism teaches that men are born blind from the message of salvation and the passages I presented show that God is actively intervening in order to blind men from believing the gospel. What other purpose is there for blinding? Please expound.

That's like saying being born in a state of sin means that you can't sin any more than you already are in a state of sin. Being born blind and being blinded are not any more mutually exclusive than being born with original sin and sinning are mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive. As I have explained to you numerous times, I am presuming the truth of both: Total Depravity and God's active process of hardening. I'm asking you what is the purpose of latter if the former is true.

 

[Johnv]

If you believe that Total Depravity and God's active process of hardening are not mutually exclusive, then I'm amiss as to why you're asking the question, since you would also therefore concur that being born blind and being blinded are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Skandelon]

If you believe that Total Depravity and God's active process of hardening are not mutually exclusive, then I'm amiss as to why you're asking the question, since you would also therefore concur that being born blind and being blinded are not mutually exclusive.

This is getting to be absurd. Are you being obtuse purposefully or do you really just not understand?

To claim that they are not mutually exclusive is not an argument. It is just a fancy way of saying both are true. I understand that you believe both are true. That is a given. What I asked is why is one necessary if the other is true. What is the purpose of hardening if Total Depravity is true given the texts I provided in the original post? To just say, "They are both true and necessary," or as you put it, "they are not mutually exclusive." Does not answer the question...it just restates your position.

Now if you can't understand that, fine. Just say so. But, please don't restate your position over and over just using different terminology. That is a waste of both of our time.

 

[Johnv]

This is getting to be absurd. Are you being obtuse purposefully or do you really just not understand?

You're speaking of yourself.

Now if you can't understand that, fine.

You're the one asking the question and not understanding the answer. If you don't want to understand it, then fine. But don't jump over everyone else just because you aren't understanding the concept. It's clear that this nonunderstanding of yours existed long before my participation in this thread, so dont' jump all over me for it.

 

[Skandelon]

John,

As I stated before, I will state again...

To claim that they are not mutually exclusive is not an argument. It is just a fancy way of saying both are true. I understand that you believe both are true. That is a given. What I asked is why is one necessary if the other is true. What is the purpose of hardening if Total Depravity is true given the texts I provided in the original post? To just say, "They are both true and necessary," or as you put it, "they are not mutually exclusive." Does not answer the question...it just restates your position.

 

[Johnv]

As I stated before, I will state again...

If you can't understand the answer, fine. Just say so. But, please don't restate your position over and over. That is a waste of both of our time.

 

[Skandelon]

Okay, allow me to give a simplified analogous summary of our conversation John:

Skan: You believe that guy over there born blind?
John: Yes, he was born blind.
Skan: Then why is that other guy putting a blind fold over him so he can't see?
John: You're proceeding from an assumption that my view of his being born blind precludes the man's responsibility, resulting in the conclusion that my view must be rejected.
Skan: I'm not assuming anything right now, I'm asking you why that guy is putting a blind fold on someone if he is already blind? That is all.
John: His being born blind and that guy putting a blind fold on him are both true and necessary..."not mutually exclusive."
Skan: Okay I understand your position, buy why is it necessary for him to put a blind fold on someone born totally blind?
John: You have your answer but you just don't like it.
Skan: But you didn't answer my question, you just restated the facts. I still don't know why you think the guy the putting a blind fold on a blind guy. You are just restating you position over and over.
John: You're dumb...na na na na na...."I'm not listening"...[sticks fingers in ears and runs away]