Did God ever prevent people from believing the gospel?

[webdog]

Does "dead" = a corpse?
What is the meaning of "dead" in the Bible?

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

By your definition the Ephesians were dead corpses before Paul even wrote to them.

I would think you would know my position by now. I said that facetiously...I was going along with skandelon and winman's question, but adding calvinists think spiritual death means spiritual corpse. I do not hold to that line of thinking.

 

[Skandelon]

It seems like the OP question assumes that God had to go on a hot pursuit to stop these blind sinner from freely coming and loving on Him, which I think misses the point. My question would be How does God harden hearts?

Then you misunderstood the OP. God only hardens those who are already rebellious toward him. Why? To blind them from the obvious truth being revealed right in front of their noses. Pharaoh is a great example. He was already unbelieving and not wanting to let the Israelites out of bondage. God didn't have to make him rebellious in that way. But God DID blind him at times from the OBVIOUS truth that the plagues and signs of God though Moses revealed. Why did God do this? To prevent Pharaoh from changing his mind before the right time...after the Passover. In this God's glory was made known and his story told throughout the ages.

Same is true of the Jews in the days of Christ. They are being blinded from the teachings of Jesus (parables, spirit of stupor etc). They might be convinced otherwise (Acts 28; John 12 etc), but God has a purpose to fulfill in their rebellion. They must kill the Messiah.

Understand? So, my question is, "Why is there a need for God to hardened/blind the Jews from the gospel teaching if indeed there is NO chance of their coming to faith apart from a "effectual call?" What is the purpose in blinding men who were born already totally blind?

 

[Tom Butler]

I was with you all the way until this last paragraph. The mistake, I believe you have made, is taking passages that are addressing the historical context of that day, which was the Jews being hardened temporarily by God so as to ingraft the Gentiles into the vine (Romans 11). You take a passage of prophecy and apply it to a doctrine defining how all men are saved or not saved. That is poor hermeneutics.

But from that day to this, more than 2000 years, the Jews have been blinded, and all those who died in that blindness died without the Messiah's salvation. Did God act contrary to his own will? Did God make it impossible for those Jews who have died without faith in the Christ, while at the same time desiring that they embrace the true Messiah? Whether the blinding is temporary or not, the result is the same. Certainly had he desired, he could have done to them what he did to Lydia in Acts 16, when he opened her heart.

What was to be the result of God's giving the Jews a heart of flesh? Was it not obedience to the Lord and accepting his Messiah? That is still to come, I believe, and their embrace of the one whom they have pierced will be God's doing--by giving them a new heart, of flesh. The fact that he has so far withheld that new heart of flesh is a reflection of his sovereign will. And it establishes the principle that anyone to whom he gives a new heart--not just Jews--will willingly receive the Messiah as Lord. And that anyone to whom he does not, will not.

 

[Skandelon]

But from that day to this, more than 2000 years, the Jews have been blinded, and all those who died in that blindness died without the Messiah's salvation. Did God act contrary to his own will? Did God make it impossible for those Jews who have died without faith in the Christ, while at the same time desiring that they embrace the true Messiah? Whether the blinding is temporary or not, the result is the same. Certainly had he desired, he could have done to them what he did to Lydia in Acts 16, when he opened her heart.

People hold to differing views on this, but personally I believe the Judicial Hardening was lifted after Christ was lifted up (John 12:32). I believe the great number of Jews coming to faith in Acts 2 is an indicator of this. But, regardless, what I'm talking about is a far cry from Calvinism's claims. Calvinism has everyone hardened from birth without any hope of salvation. I'm saying that God chose to temporarily blind a group of "obstinate and rebellious" people who he had been "holding out his hands to all day long" (Rm 10) so as to keep them in that rebellion. Why? So as to accomplish salvation for all. In that rebellion they killed the Messiah, fulfilling the prophecy and atonement. But they still had hope for salvation...Read Romans 11:14...see what I mean?

Now, I believe many Jews remain "self hardened" but not actively blinded by God, as was in this day. But that is for another discussion...

 

[LaymansTermsPlease]

WHY WOULD GOD DO THESE THINGS TO PREVENT MEN FROM BELIEVING, IF INDEED ALL MEN ARE BORN UNABLE TO WILLINGLY BELIEVE?

Not just that, but intentionally NOT doing miracles in places they would be effective.

Christ says that if He had performed His miracles in Tyre, Sidon, or Sodom, that they would have repented.

So, it wasn't that the people in those cities did not have the ability to repent.

They just weren't given the chance by way of miracles that Jesus Himself says would have prompted them to repent?

Sounds kind of like someone paraphrasing "don't go preach over there, if you do they will hear the gospel and believe". "They are capable of responding if they hear, so don't give them the chance" ??

(20) Then Jesus began to criticize openly the cities in which he had done many of his miracles, because they did not repent.
(21) "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
(22) But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you!
(23) And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to Hades! For if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, it would have continued to this day.
(24) But I tell you, it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you!"

 

[annsni]

Not just that, but intentionally NOT doing miracles in places they would be effective.

Christ says that if He had performed His miracles in Tyre, Sidon, or Sodom, that they would have repented.

So, it wasn't that the people in those cities did not have the ability to repent.

They just weren't given the chance by way of miracles that Jesus Himself says would have prompted them to repent?

Sounds kind of like someone paraphrasing "don't go preach over there, if you do they will hear the gospel and believe". "They are capable of responding if they hear, so don't give them the chance" ??

Don't you think that if God Himself went to preach the Gospel to people, that they would turn to Him? God Himself chose to not allow some to come to know Him for some reason by not going to preach to them. Why? Because He's God. That's all I know.

 

[Skandelon]

Don't you think that if God Himself went to preach the Gospel to people, that they would turn to Him? God Himself chose to not allow some to come to know Him for some reason by not going to preach to them. Why? Because He's God. That's all I know.

I think you may be missing the point Ann. The point is that God is acknowledging that by merely preaching the word or performing miracles these people are capable of repenting and believing, something IMPOSSIBLE if Total Depravity is true.

The other point, being that in the historical context of that day God didn't want many to come to faith until AFTER Christ was raised up. Instead, only a few from Israel had been selected to hear and follow Christ. This is significant to understand because it affects how you interpret and understand all the passages with regard to this debate. Understand?

 

[Robert Snow]

No Ann, he is not.

He is asking why God would need to blind unregenerate people from understanding and believing the gospel if it were already impossible for them to understand and believe without God's grace as Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace teach.

It is an excellent question I would also like to see the Calvinist's here answer.

I have not read past this posting, but I doubt you will ever get a Scriptural reason. This is just one instance where the Scripture shows the error of Calvinism. I imagine they will simply redefine terms and words in order to justify their position; they have no choice!

 

[Robert Snow]

These concepts are not mutually exclusive. 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.

No John, you cannot have your cake and eat it too!

 

[annsni]

I think you may be missing the point Ann. The point is that God is acknowledging that by merely preaching the word or performing miracles these people are capable of repenting and believing, something IMPOSSIBLE if Total Depravity is true.

Yes - it is entirely possible of God Himself is speaking the truth to you. He KNEW that there would be those who would follow Him but He chose not to allow them to. It would be different if any other man in the history of the world were there - they could speak to the men until they were blue in the face and it would take an act of God to warm them. But an act of God is God speaking to them. So you must realize that God speaking to them is going to be effective.

The other point, being that in the historical context of that day God didn't want many to come to faith until AFTER Christ was raised up. Instead, only a few from Israel had been selected to hear and follow Christ. This is significant to understand because it affects how you interpret and understand all the passages with regard to this debate. Understand?

I understand but here we see God's will overriding man's will, don't we?

 

[Skandelon]

Yes - it is entirely possible of God Himself is speaking the truth to you. He KNEW that there would be those who would follow Him but He chose not to allow them to. It would be different if any other man in the history of the world were there - they could speak to the men until they were blue in the face and it would take an act of God to warm them. But an act of God is God speaking to them. So you must realize that God speaking to them is going to be effective.

But this wasn't just about Jesus preaching or doing miracles. Jesus even told his followers to keep things secret for a time, remember?

Additionally, if you take this position then what is the point of John 6 and the Calvinists insistence that God must "draw" them? Jesus is the one preaching here, isn't it the Calvinist's position that the reason his audience could not believe was because they were born totally depraved and non-elect? You seem to be arguing that Jesus' preaching and miracles would in fact draw them? That seems inconsistent. Please explain.

I understand but here we see God's will overriding man's will, don't we?

No. It was there decision to resist God all those years. "I held out my hands all day to a rebellious and obstinate people." (Rm 10) God is only assuring that they stay in that rebellion by blinding them from the obvious truth. This is a temporary blinding and it is for a greater good of all mankind. God is not forcing them to be unbelieving. Nor is he keeping them from eventually coming to faith. He is ONLY temporary blinding them from truth lest they believe it. Read John 12:39-41 and it explains this perfectly.

 

[Robert Snow]

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

Correct, it doesn't negate Bible election, but it does negate Calvinistic election. They are not the same thing.

 

[Robert Snow]

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

Wrong! Judas cast himsel aside to suicide and not salvation, not God!

 

[Johnv]

Correct, it doesn't negate Bible election, but it does negate Calvinistic election. They are not the same thing.

So, just so I understand you correctly, your argument isn't that the doctrine of election is false, but that the common Calvinistic view of the doctrine of election isn't correct?

 

[The Archangel]

Wrong! Judas cast himsel aside to suicide and not salvation, not God!

That's not necessarily so. John 17:12 says this: While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Judas is the son of destruction, and this before his suicide. So it is clear there is something inherently unregenerate in Judas...and there always was.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[donnA]

no one could believe without God's causing it, so to ask if He prevents anyone from believing is about as far off as you can get.

 

[Robert Snow]

So, just so I understand you correctly, your argument isn't that the doctrine of election is false, but that the common Calvinistic view of the doctrine of election isn't correct?

I believe God has elected all who will believe the Gospel and turn from their sins and trust Christ. I do not believe God has decided who these will be; all can turn if they will believe the Gospel. Man has a free will and can turn to Christ if they will.

 

[Robert Snow]

That's not necessarily so. John 17:12 says this: While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Judas is the son of destruction, and this before his suicide. So it is clear there is something inherently unregenerate in Judas...and there always was.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I believe God knew Judas would not trust Christ, so He used his choice against him to glorify His Son by being the one who betrayed Him.