Did God ever prevent people from believing the gospel?

[annsni]

So, you are arguing that God had to further harden man even beyond their already totally depraved natures so that they would not effectually be drawn to his clear teachings? That means you believe that everything Christ taught was effectual in bringing about certain salvation to those who heard it, unless they were further hardened by God? Do you believe this is true of the gospel truth if you or I were teaching it, or was it only when Jesus said it that it was effectual?

No - I believe that God's Word and call is effectual and if Jesus Christ called all who heard Him, all would have followed Him. Instead, He did not reveal all to everyone because He willed that not all would repent and follow Him. That's what He said.

Actually the scripture clearly says that some men's heart BECOME HARDENED otherwise they might see, hear, understand and repent. It never says men are born in that condition. Please show me if I'm wrong about that.

How do you know that the hardening is not the same as the original condition man is born in?

And we all agree that none seek God on their own, but this says nothing of man's ability to willingly respond in faith when God's message of reconciliation seeks to save them, does it?

Wait - you say man does not seek God on their own but then they do?

All men hear the message but Scripture says that none seek God.

 

[Skandelon]

How do you know that the hardening is not the same as the original condition man is born in?

The bible tells us: Acts 28:24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

This passage, which is quoted from the OT several times in the NT, explains that the Jews hearts had GROWN calloused. THEY WEREN'T BORN CALLOUSED. It also clearly explains their ability had they not become hard. "OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE." He even goes on to contrast the Gentiles who "WILL LISTEN."

Wait - you say man does not seek God on their own but then they do?

No, I said there is a difference between men not being able to seek God and men not being able to respond to God's seeking of him. Make sense?

All men hear the message but Scripture says that none seek God.

Actually, not all men do here the message of scripture, but that's beside the point. None seek God ON THEIR OWN, but thankfully God has not left us alone, has He? Now, the question is can we respond to Him? I say that we can and must or we will be judged accordingly.

 

[Johnv]

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?

Therein lies your problem. You're trying to compare analogy to an analogy, which makes no sense. You're presuming that being born blind means being blindfolded has no effect. A man born blind still has daylight cast upon his eyes, but the signals don't get to his brain. A man with a blindfold has his eyes covered, and the daylight never gets to his eyes. Both blind men and sighted men can be blindfolded, but the reason they can't see is slightly different. The end result is the same. So, like I said, being born blind and being blindfolded are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Skandelon]

You're presuming that being born blind means being blindfolded has no effect.

So, you believe that the blindfold (i.e. God's hardening) has an effect? Ok, so what is that effect? And what is its purpose?

A man born blind still has daylight cast upon his eyes, but the signals don't get to his brain. A man with a blindfold has his eyes covered, and the daylight never gets to his eyes.

So are you saying then that a man is born with the ability to hear the gospel truth but not understand it and once he is further hardened by God then he can't even hear the gospel any more? I'm trying to read between the lines here since you won't just simply come out and answer the question so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your quasi answer.

Both blind men and sighted men can be blindfolded, but the reason they can't see is slightly different.

So what is the reason a totally depraved can't see? And what is the reason a person being hardened by God can't see?

 

[webdog]

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.

Responsibility and ability go hand in hand. You cannot have responsibility without ability.

 

[Skandelon]

Responsibility and ability go hand in hand. You cannot have responsibility without ability.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: very true.

 

[Johnv]

Responsibility and ability go hand in hand. You cannot have responsibility without ability.

If you're speaking strictly in regards to a linear if/then timeline, you're correct. Hyperarminianism fails to take God's omnitemporal nature into account. God isn't limited by a linear timeline. A person being elect does not, therefore, absolve a person of personal responsibility.

So, you believe that the blindfold (i.e. God's hardening) has an effect?

You, not I, made the blindfold analogy. I'm simply saying that a blindfold and blindness aren't necessarily related.

 

[webdog]

If you're speaking strictly in regards to a linear if/then timeline, you're correct. Hyperarminianism fails to take God's omnitemporal nature into account. God isn't limited by a linear timeline. A person being elect does not, therefore, absolve a person of personal responsibility.

Truth must be truth, and for one to be responsible, one must be able regardless of time. Responsibility always requires ability. That is immutable truth.

 

[Johnv]

Truth must be truth, and for one to be responsible, one must be able regardless of time. Responsibility always requires ability. That is immutable truth.

Indeed, but that doesn't in any way negate the concept of election.

 

[Skandelon]

You, not I, made the blindfold analogy. I'm simply saying that a blindfold and blindness aren't necessarily related.

Ok, John, this conversation has run its course. Apparently you think you are answering a question and I don't, so we are wasting each other's time. Thank you for you consideration on this matter. Blessings to you.

Is there any Calvinist who will address the question of the OP please? Thank you.

 

[webdog]

Indeed, but that doesn't in any way negate the concept of election.

It doesn't negate it, it helps define it.

 

[Jim1999]

Judas had every opportunity, of his own volition, to understand and believe the gospel of Jesus. He even developed a guilty conscience about what he had done, but God cast him aside to suicide and not salvation.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

Judas had every opportunity, of his own volition, to understand and believe the gospel of Jesus. He even developed a guilty conscience about what he had done, but God cast him aside to suicide and not salvation.

Cheers,

Jim

God was guilty of Judas' suicide? God caused him to sin?

 

[Skandelon]

Webdog, I don't know if you have picked up on this but Johnv's statements not only don't make any sense but they rarely address the actual topic at hand. For example, just break down this one statement of his. You said, "Responsibility and ability go hand in hand. You cannot have responsibility without ability." He says...

If you're speaking strictly in regards to a linear if/then timeline, you're correct.

So, here he is affirming that in our linear reality of time and space responsibility and ability go hand in hand. Then he says...

Hyperarminianism fails to take God's omnitemporal nature into account.

First, what in the heck is Hyperarminianism? Second, what does the nature of God existing during all points of time have to do with the ability of man's response?

God isn't limited by a linear timeline. A person being elect does not, therefore, absolve a person of personal responsibility.

So, because God is eternally transcendent his election of some and not others somehow removes the need for ability to be associated with responsibility? Talk about non sequintur! He makes a leap from God's eternal nature being the cause for absolving a person's responsibility without any explanation, biblical support or justification. Honestly, I think he is just putting all the big words he knows together and drawing ridiculous conclusions. I wouldn't waste your time...

 

[Jedi Knight]

Every man has enough light to condemn him,but does not have enough light to save him unless he accepts the gospel.

 

[Amy.G]

Yes. God does prevent certain people from believing. It is an act of judgment against them because they have hardened their own hearts against God.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but not until he hardened his own heart against God.

Paul tells us in Romans 1 that God will allow people to have want they want, which is to live according to their own desires apart from God.

Ro*1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;



The point at which God judges in this way is known only to God. But it's clear that God does harden certain people. He is blinding the Jews (as a nation) because of their rejection of Christ. But He only does this hardening because of people first hardening their own hearts against Him. That is why I call it a judgment.

 

[webdog]

I tend to believe that God's judicial hardening has been planted into our being naturally. For instance, if you "harden your heart" to your alarm clock when it goes off, eventually you won't even hear it. I do the same to my kids when they are screaming

In this instance, God's stating "I will harden..." could be like me saying "I'm going to make that person mad" and then going over to them and kicking them in the shin. While I did what I said (make them mad) it was a secondary response to my physical interaction, similar to God putting that mechanism in us to shun things we do not desire.

 

[Johnv]

Webdog, I don't know if you have picked up on this but Johnv's statements not only don't make any sense but they rarely address the actual topic at hand.

Ya know, if you stuck to engaging in discussion rather than character assassination, you'd be taken more seriously. My statements make sense and address the topic. You simply don't want to accept my response.

So, here he is affirming that in our linear reality of time and space responsibility and ability go hand in hand. Then he says...

Uh, of course. Our existence is limited strictly to the laws of space-time. We can't escape the "action/reaction" existence of space time.

what in the heck is Hyperarminianism?

Arminianism taken to an extreme.

Second, what does the nature of God existing during all points of time have to do with the ability of man's response?

It doesn't. That's exactly my point. Man's responsibility does not negate God's election of men, or vice versa.

Talk about non sequintur!

It is the arminian claim that free will negates election which is a nonsequitor. In reality, however, men's resposibility not negating the concept of election affirms the calvinist argument.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes. God does prevent certain people from believing. It is an act of judgment against them because they have hardened their own hearts against God.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but not until he hardened his own heart against God.

Paul tells us in Romans 1 that God will allow people to have want they want, which is to live according to their own desires apart from God.

Ro*1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;



The point at which God judges in this way is known only to God. But it's clear that God does harden certain people. He is blinding the Jews (as a nation) because of their rejection of Christ. But He only does this hardening because of people first hardening their own hearts against Him. That is why I call it a judgment.

I agree with everything you have said here Amy G! The only thing I would add is that the hardening is not unto certain damnation, because even those hardened could be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14). So, while it is an act of judgement, I think it can be also merciful for God to harden someone. Paul said, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience (hardened them) so that he may have mercy on them all." :thumbsup:

 

[David Michael Harris]

Did God ever prevent people from believing the gospel?

Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.
Book of Psalms 115:3 ESV

Our job is to preach the Gospel and adhere to the Christian teachings of the NT.