Double Double Toil and Trouble

[The Biblicist]

What about God hardening Phaoroahs heart and raising him up as a vessel of wrath?

That proves that hardening is an INDIVIDUAL thing just as election is an INDIVIDUAL thing with Jacob (Rom. 9:11) as an object of "mercy" (Rom. 9:16,18) and chosen vessels of mercy (Rom. 9:22-23) as is vessels of wrath because God will have mercy on WHOM He will just as He hardeneth WHOM he will.

 

[webdog]

Please note the present tense "is" in the very text you quote which is long before the Lord's Supper or John 13. He "is" a devil and was so from the beginning (Jn. 6:64,70). He did not "become" a devil but "IS" a devil when Jesus chose him "from the beginning" (Jn. 6:64) and while he was speaking in John 6:70.

You are addressing everything from a fixed, linear understanding. It is a mystery how God interacts with man within time, but that does not mean what you say it means.

 

[Skandelon]

That proves that hardening is an INDIVIDUAL thing just as election is an INDIVIDUAL thing with Jacob (Rom. 9:11) as an object of "mercy" (Rom. 9:16,18) and chosen vessels of mercy (Rom. 9:22-23) as is vessels of wrath because God will have mercy on WHOM He will just as He hardeneth WHOM he will.

Funny how those same individuals being hardened are brought up again just a chapter later as 'not stumbling beyond recovery,' and 'being provoked to envy so that they MIGHT be saved.'

God bound them all over to disobedience so as to have mercy on them all.

 

[webdog]

Biblicist has responded correctly to your denial that Judas was always a devil.

Re: Apostles.......so they are not members of the NT Church?

And Christ is not yet Head of the Church?

And Christ was not the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world?

And the Elect NT Church members were not chosen before the foundation of the world?

1. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
2. After pentecost, yes, apostles were part of the church.
3. Yes, Christ is the head. Never said anything even hinting He is not.
4. See #3
5. Depends on what you mean by chosen and for what purpose.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are addressing everything from a fixed, linear understanding. It is a mystery how God interacts with man within time, but that does not mean what you say it means.

You are ignoring everything necessary in a text to be able to comprehend its meaning. Jesus could have used any tense but not only did he choose the present tense but the STATE OF BEING VERB that describes his actual STATE OF BEING at the time of speaking - Jn. 6:70.

No matter how you weave your logic John 6:64,70 precedes John 13 by at least a couple of years and John 6:70 clearly states that Jesus knew at the time he chose him to the apostolic office that he was not only an unbeliever "from the beginning" (v. 64) but a "devil" as his present STATE OF BEING.

Your method of interpretation as applied here would make the Bible completely meaningless and beyond human comprehension if that logic was applied to any and every other verse in scripture. Tenses would mean nothing. Word meanings would mean nothing and thus words would mean nothing except what anyone wanted to force upon them contrary to what they actuall say in tense and meaning.

 

[The Biblicist]

Funny how those same individuals being hardened are brought up again just a chapter later as 'not stumbling beyond recovery,' and 'being provoked to envy so that they MIGHT be saved.'

God bound them all over to disobedience so as to have mercy on them all.

Real funny because it can't be found in the next chapter or any other chapter. Pharoah is not found in the next chapter and he alone is the one mentioned by name as being hardened beyond recovery. Israel is not the same composition of individuals in Paul's age that is saved at the coming of Christ (Rom. 11:25-28). What is saved is the "elect" remnant who were "by nature children of wrath even as others" but for God's amazing grace. So what is "funny" is really not so funny because you simply are reading into the text what is simply not there.

 

[Skandelon]

Real funny because it can't be found in the next chapter or any other chapter. Pharoah is not found in the next chapter and he alone is the one mentioned by name as being hardened beyond recovery.

God blinded Pharaoh in his rebellion so as to ensure the first passover, likewise he blinded Israel in their rebellion so as to ensure the second Passover. But, as Paul explains, Israel has not stumbled beyond recovery and as the Gentiles are grafted in they will provoke the Jews to envy so they might be saved. It is all explained in a very clear way. God hardens Israel so as to provide mercy to them, not certain condemnation.

 

[The Biblicist]

God blinded Pharaoh in his rebellion so as to ensure the first passover, likewise he blinded Israel in their rebellion so as to ensure the second Passover. But, as Paul explains, Israel has not stumbled beyond recovery and as the Gentiles are grafted in they will provoke the Jews to envy so they might be saved. It is all explained in a very clear way. God hardens Israel so as to provide mercy to them, not certain condemnation.

I suggest you re-read my last post and let it sink in, get a grasp of my response and try again.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok, we're done. Blessings.

 

[The Biblicist]

God blinded Pharaoh in his rebellion so as to ensure the first passover,

However, that is not what you said in your former post was it? You said that the very ones in Romans 9, the very ones I pointed out as INDIVIDUALS [pharoah, whom] that were hardened by God were in the next chapters recovered from hardening. I denied that the next chapters supported your claim and I still deny it. However, you come back with Pharoah trying to prove some other point which has absolutely nothing to do with you original clain in your original post. So, I suggest to you to reread my response because my response is still unanswered by you post and you are still failing to make your claim.

likewise he blinded Israel in their rebellion so as to ensure the second Passover. But, as Paul explains, Israel has not stumbled beyond recovery and as the Gentiles are grafted in they will provoke the Jews to envy so they might be saved. It is all explained in a very clear way. God hardens Israel so as to provide mercy to them, not certain condemnation.

Again, in my response to your post, I pointed out clearly that the Israel that is being reclaimed in Romans 11:25-28 is not of the same individual composition as those hardened against Christ. I also pointed out that the "remnant" refers to the saved in every generation that did not partake of this national hardening. You completely ignore my post and continue to fail to make your original claim. So you claim that those hardened in Romans 9 are reclaimed in the following chapters is simply false and remains to be false.

 

[Skandelon]

However, that is not what you said in your former post was it? You said that the very ones in Romans 9, the very ones I pointed out as INDIVIDUALS [pharoah, whom] that were hardened by God were in the next chapters recovered from hardening.

Pharaoh was long since dead at that time obviously. I was talking about the Israelites being hardened at that time, in a similar way that Pharaoh was. Pharaoh was a foreshadowing of them because God blinded him from the obvious truth to accomplish the first passover, in the same way that he blinded Israel to accomplish the real Passover.

But does that mean Israel has 'stumbled beyond recovery?' Does that mean the individual Israelites being hardened in Paul's day don't have any hope of being saved? "BY NO MEANS..." is Paul's answer. They may be provoked by Paul's ministry to the Gentiles through envy and saved (Rm 11:14). They are being 'cut off' but they can be 'grafted back in' if they leave their unbelief (according to Paul).

Again, in my response to your post, I pointed out clearly that the Israel that is being reclaimed in Romans 11:25-28 is not of the same individual composition as those hardened against Christ.

Isn't that convenient for you?

What verse indicates that the 'individual composition' of the Israelites being hardened/cut off in chapter 9 are not the same as those being potentially 'gafted back in' and saved through envy surrounding the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles? How do you suppose they can be 'grafted back in' to a vine they were never actually attached to? They had to be 'cut off' or hardened in order to be grafted back in. And what is the purpose of cutting them off? To condemn them? ORRR

"God has bound them all over to disobedience in order to show mercy to them all." 11:32

 

[The Biblicist]

Pharaoh was long since dead at that time obviously. I was talking about the Israelites being hardened at that time, in a similar way that Pharaoh was. Pharaoh was a foreshadowing of them because God blinded him from the obvious truth to accomplish the first passover, in the same way that he blinded Israel to accomplish the real Passover.

Therefore, such hardening is not restricted to nations but have individual application. For example, take the case of Pharoah. He was a pagan, an obivous non-believer BEFORE the hardening process began. He was undoubtedly "born of flesh" rather than "born of Spirit" (Jn. 3:6; Gal. 3:29). Hence, the fallen nature existed in him BEFORE the hardening process occurred. Now, this fallen nature was merely exposed to light that revealed God both in word and in nature. His FALLEN NATURE recognized this light as evidence of a divine being and so had OPEN EYES in the sense of NATURAL RECOGNITION that it was light but he progressively responded to that light as predicted by Christ in John 3:19-20 just as Paul in Romans 8:7-8 demands is the ONLY kind of response to light by the fallen nature. You confuse NATURAL ability (eyes and ears that see) to recognize light for light with spiritual ability necessary to respond favorably to such light.

Isn't that convenient for you?

What verse indicates that the 'individual composition' of the Israelites being hardened/cut off in chapter 9 are not the same as those being potentially 'gafted back in' and saved through envy surrounding the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles?

The issue is very simple. The composition of Israel at the first coming was composed of individual non-elect whereas the composition of Israel at the second coming are composed of individual elect. The nation is an elect nation at all times but the time wherein election to salvation actually occurs, as in the life of any individual elect is predetermined by God and that event does not occur until the second advent when in fact the individual composition of elect Israel AS A NATION is composed of individual elect persons or else salvation is not possible - Rom. 11:25-28. To say the same thing another way, at the first advent not all Israel was of Israel but at the second advent all present Israel is of Israel. Salvation is always an INDIVIDUAL thing never a CORPORATE thing unless the CORPORATE is made up of individuals who repent and believe - that is the nature of Israel at the second advent that was not present at the first advent. In between every generation has an elect "remnant" - again made up of individual elect, as election has obtained it and the rest were blinded.

How do you suppose they can be 'grafted back in' to a vine they were never actually attached to?

First, it is not a "vine" but an olive "tree" in Romans 11 (no doubt a slip on your part).

Second, the very fact that Israel was included in that olive tree but afterwards was cut out and then later to be grafted back in proves conclusively that grafting in and cutting out have nothing to do with personal salvation, or else one could be born by natural birth into salvation, then lost by being cut out and then resaved by being grafted back in again. Hence, this has nothing to do with actually obtaining or losing personal salvation.

Third, there are TWO different trees which represent TWO different TYPES of fallen humans (Jews versus Gentiles) who are being placed by God in the POSITION where the promise to Abraham may be applied to INDIVIDUALS within that chosen sphere of mankind. When Israel was blessed with that POSITION then God primarily called His elect out of Israel. Now when the Gentile nations are in that POSITION, God calls out His elect primarily from the Gentile nations "until the fullness of the gentiles come in."

Cutting off and grafting in refers to the POSITION or chosen SPHERE from which God calls out a people as promised to Abraham which consisted of a people from his own loins as well as from MANY NATIONS.

They had to be 'cut off' or hardened in order to be grafted back in.

The fallen nature of man can NATURALLY recognize light to be light and by nature reacts as Jesus describes in John 3:19-20 which automatically begins the process of hardening against the light it is exposed to UNLESS and UNTIL God intervenes by divine fiat and creates the "substance" (Heb. 11:1) of faith WITHIN the heart, thus creating a new believing heart (2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 2:10).

"God has bound them all over to disobedience in order to show mercy to them all." 11:32

The "all" defined by the preceding context are the "elect" from both Israel and Gentiles not "all" humans without exception. Please note the pronouns in the preceding context leading up to verse 32:

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.


Verse 32 is referring to Israel as they now are in unbelief but yet according to the purpose of election they shall obtain mercy as described in verse 28. He is referring to the elect from both spheres from which He calls out His elect.

 

[Skandelon]

Therefore, such hardening is not restricted to nations but have individual application.

I never denied this has an individual application. If a nation of individuals is blinded, then individuals in that nation would be blinded. But the point is that those individuals being blinded MIGHT be provoked to envy and saved, so they cannot be representative of the individual non-elect reprobates in a Calvinistic worldview.

For example, take the case of Pharoah. He was a pagan, an obivous non-believer BEFORE the hardening process began. He was undoubtedly "born of flesh" rather than "born of Spirit" (Jn. 3:6; Gal. 3:29). Hence, the fallen nature existed in him BEFORE the hardening process occurred.

I agree with everything you've said thus far...

Now, this fallen nature was merely exposed to light that revealed God both in word and in nature. His FALLEN NATURE recognized this light as evidence of a divine being and so had OPEN EYES in the sense of NATURAL RECOGNITION

I believe judicial hardening is like when a police officer hides his presence from speeder to ensure they keep speeding. He is not making them speed, he is just ensuring they keep doing so in order to accomplish his purpose. If the speeder could SEE the cop he would slow down, just as if Pharaoh really could SEE that the plagues were of God he would have let the people go. So, in order to accomplish the purpose of making His glory known through all the plagues and to bring about the passover, God blinded Pharaoh...sent him a 'spirit of stupor,' and hid Himself from Pharaoh so as to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through his rebellion.

This perfectly parallels what he is doing with the nation of Israel (which, yes would involved individual Jews being blinded in their rebellion so as to accomplish redemption for the world).

Again, as Paul so clearly summarizes: "God gave all men over to disobedience so as to show mercy to all men." 11:32

 

[Skandelon]

The "all" defined by the preceding context are the "elect" from both Israel and Gentiles not "all" humans without exception.

So, not all men are bound over to disobedience? Because anyone reading this structure would certainly conclude that the same 'all' being cut off are the same 'all' being shown mercy.

You would have us believe Paul actually meant, "God has bound every individual over to disobedience so as to show a select few mercy." Which is absurd on every level of absurdity.

 

[Skandelon]

Second, the very fact that Israel was included in that olive tree but afterwards was cut out and then later to be grafted back in proves conclusively that grafting in and cutting out have nothing to do with personal salvation, or else one could be born by natural birth into salvation, then lost by being cut out and then resaved by being grafted back in again. Hence, this has nothing to do with actually obtaining or losing personal salvation.

I never claimed that it did represent losing personal salvation. I have always argued that it is about revelation which enables salvation, not salvation itself. Those "grafted in" are seeing, hearing and understanding so that they MIGHT turn and be reconciled to God (as scripture states clearly numerous times). If you reject the revelation long enough you grow hardened to it and eventually, if God so chooses, he may cut you off from the revelation all together making you deaf, blind and unable to even understand it anymore. That is NOT a condition from birth, as Total Inability suggests. That is something Calvinists PRESUME onto the text. I challenge you to find one scripture where it teaches that men are born judicially blinded/hardened. You won't. You will ALWAYS see it talked about as something men BECOME over time. They GROW CALLOUSED, they aren't born totally calloused.

"Israel has grown calloused, but the Gentiles will listen." Acts 28:28
Israel is being cut off, but the Gentiles are being grafted in.
That means the Gentiles are enabled to enter covenant through faith, which comes by way of revelation (faith come by hearing).

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe judicial hardening is like when a police officer hides his presence

Hardening is a REACTION to something present and recognizable not to something hidden and unrecongizable.

Please consider these scriptures carefully:

Jn. 9:39 ¶ And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

They had no spiritual sight but were just as blind as the rest but that was not their profession "ye say, we see." However, what exposed their true condition was their reaction to the Scriptures they CLAIMED TO SEE with special INSIGHT. When they were exposed to the TRUTH of the scriptures they responded as described by Jesus in John 3:19-20 and as described by Paul in Romans 8:7-8. So their professed SIGHT responded by shutting their professed eyes to the truth and the more they were exposed to the truth the more they HARDENED against it until they were so full of rage they wanted to kill him. HOwever, that is not how they began.

Hardening is the natural response to exposure of light by the fallen nature an all men have NATURAL ability to recognize truth but are without ability to receive it as John 3:19-20 and Romans 8:7-8 explicitlly state in no uncertain language.

 

[Skandelon]

Hardening is a REACTION to something present and recognizable not to something hidden and unrecongizable.

I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree. Heat can soften butter and harden clay. I get your point. You are inferring that the nature of man is either like clay which hardens in the light or butter which melts in the light...its a matter of how it is made, not the revelation itself.

But my point is that a man is not born, according to scripture, as a totally hardened clay pot (unable to see, hear, understand and turn, as Calvinism's Total Inability teaches).

If anything he is born more like butter and only "BECOMES" (not my word, but the text) hardened over time IF and ONLY IF he continually resists the revelation/light of God. And GOD, if he so chooses, wants to 'cut him off' or 'give him over' to his calloused/hardened heart so as to accomplish a greater purpose through him and his rebellion, that is God's prerogative. Who are we to question HIM? That is Paul's point in Romans 9.

So, what I'm saying is not disagreeing with the point about the nature of a hardened heart verses a soft heart (clay vs butter). But my issue is with the ASSUMPTION that men are born with a already hardened/calloused totally unable to respond heart of stone, that God has already 'given over' and 'cut off' without hope of ever being saved prior to the person ever being conceived.

 

[The Biblicist]

So, not all men are bound over to disobedience?

If the context were applying it to all men without exception as in Romans 3:9-20 then certainly that is true. However, that is not the preceding context of the text you used. What is true of all is equally true of all the elect as well in regard to their natural state, and the context has to do with the elect.

Because anyone reading this structure would certainly conclude that the same 'all' being cut off are the same 'all' being shown mercy.

First, the context does not use the term "all" in the way you are demanding as nowhere in this chapter does it use the word "all" to describe those cut off.

Second, there is the obvious time difference between Israel that is cut off in the time Paul lived versus the "all" Israel that is saved at the second advent of Christ in Romans 11:25-28 and even you must admit that salvation is personal and individual not corporate and thus "all" that make up the composition of Israel at the second advent are not the same composition of individuals at the first advent. The difference being the second composition are composed of the "elect" (v. 28) whereas the former was not as in the former only the "remnant" were made up of the elect individuals and the rest were blinded unto damnation as individuals (vv. 5-7).

You would have us believe Paul actually meant, "God has bound every individual over to disobedience so as to show a select few mercy." Which is absurd on every level of absurdity.

Why are you inserting words that cannot be found in the text or context at all? Here is the text in its context:

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

1. Verse 28 introduces election as the future hope of those who are NOW enemies of the gospel.

2. Verse 29 confirms why this election is a sure hope because God does not withdraw his gifts or callings and they are called unto salvation.

3. Verse 30 proves he is not speaking of ALL GENTILES without exception but only those who are NOW saved who WERE lost. = Hence, Gentile ELECT

4. Verse 31 referring to GENTILE ELECT in verse 30 are saved NOW because of Israel's present state of unbelief. However, it is through YOUR MERCY (the gentile elect) that ELECT Israel (v. 28) shall be brought to salvation (vv. 25-28).

5. God has concluded ALL ELECT ISRAEL in unbelief that he might have mercy upon ALL ELECT ISRAEL just as Romans 11:25-28 clearly has already stated.

So God uses unbelief of Israel to bring salvation to the elect Gentiles and through "your mercy" received through their unbelief he will also bring salvation to "ALL" Elect Israel.

 

[Skandelon]

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

You like pronouns, from what I remember in the other discussion. Can you tell us what the underlined pronouns refer to in the above section...

 

[Protestant]

2. After pentecost, yes, apostles were part of the church.
3. Yes, Christ is the head. Never said anything even hinting He is not.

Christ, the Head of the Church called and anointed His first NT Church members of His Body, the Apostles.

"And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;

17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,

19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house."

Please note this ordination to office preceded Pentecost.

My question remains.......Why did Christ knowingly, purposefully ordain a devil as Apostle?