God, That's not fair!

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Ian;
You quoted;
Ezek.36:26-27
It's the last part of these verses that I find intresting;
"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."
All Jews still sin or break God's law. No man is without sin in this world as it is now. How can we assume that this is meant for right now? That we are regenerated in this fashion and yet we still sin. This is Ezekiel's prophecy of the comming 1000 year rein. This verse speaks of our future ressurected condition. It can't mean anything else.
Every man is a sinner saved or not. How I wish this weren't so.

You quoted;
Jer.31:33 God has written his laws in all mens heart. It's our conscience.

You quote act 16:14
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Lydia already worshiped God. I would say Lydia was a Jew or if not Jewish in nationality Jewish in religion. I'm convinced that being a Jew she most likely was not open to the gospel. God blinded the Jews to Christianity because of there rejection of Him. This is why her heart needed to be opened.

Any challenge to God is rebellion, and God doesn't like sin one bit. Eternity is going to be wonderful for us because His will shall be perfectly manifested.

I don't believe that all challenge is sin. Where ever there is a task to be done there is Challenge. With out challenge there is no task.

May God Bless You Ian it has been a pleasure discussing scripture and doctrine with you. I guess you might say we will just have to agree to disagree and let it go at that. As long as there are two different people in the world there will always be different views.

Mike

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
But I'm ignorant of any Scripture that 'supports the idea that whatever God demands of people He gives them the ability to accomplish it'. Romans 1 says nothing of man's ability to love God, just that man is without excuse because HE KNOWS HE OUGHT TO.

A command implies ability. Would you say to a rock, "jump!" Of course not, because you would know it can't hear and respond. BTW, man is without excuse because he could clearly see and understood the divine attitubutes of God but REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS SUCH. This implies that he could have, like Job, Abraham, Isaac, David, Rahab and many other I'm sure not mentioned in scripture did. God credited their faith to them as righteousness. Though they themselves were not righteous in keeping the demands of the law.

Knowing we ought to is not the same as being able to. Did any man (aside from One) ever love and glorify God as he ought?

Job was righteous in the eyes of God. Not perfect, but was considered "right" because of his faith.

But God wants us to know the total inability of the human heart to love Him, so He chose a nation out of all the nations of the earth and revealed Himself to them. He delivered them from oppression and gave them His holy Law. 'Do this and live', He said. Did even one of them do it? No, God made it manifest that our fall in Adam left us enemies of God in our hearts, forever unwilling to love and serve Him. Jew and Gentile condemned and hopeless. ABILITY DOES NOT DETERMINE OBLIGATION.

But God did provide a way. Jesus Christ. He demanded that we fulfill the law then he provided the means for us to accomplish it, through faith. The law accomplished its purpose by making us conscious of our sin and our need for a savior. It was never the laws purpose to save souls.

 

[Ian Major]

Mike said, ' May God Bless You Ian it has been a pleasure discussing scripture and doctrine with you. I guess you might say we will just have to agree to disagree and let it go at that. As long as there are two different people in the world there will always be different views.

Yes, Mike, I too have been blessed in searching the Scriptures with you and the other saints. But please don't stop that search - we may have to bear with one another's lack of understanding of certain truths, but we can be confident that there is more light for each of us as we persevere.

Regarding Ezek.36:26-27 you said, ' It's the last part of these verses that I find intresting; "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." All Jews still sin or break God's law. No man is without sin in this world as it is now. How can we assume that this is meant for right now? That we are regenerated in this fashion and yet we still sin. This is Ezekiel's prophecy of the comming 1000 year rein. This verse speaks of our future ressurected condition. It can't mean anything else.

This verse matches the Jer. 31 passage, the promise of the New Covenant. That covenant was cut at Golgotha and is the basis of the Church's existence. The contrast is between rebel hearts and loyal ones. The unconverted heart and the converted one. Not sinless perfection of the heavenly state, but Christian obedience. The salvation that came to multitudes of Jews at Pentecost and to Jews and Gentiles subsequently.

You said, ' Jer.31:33 God has written his laws in all mens heart. It's our conscience.

Our conscience has an awareness of God's Law, but that is not what Jer.31 was referring to. It was contrasting the condition of unbelieving Israel with that of their promised state in a future day. What was the difference? God's Law written on their hearts and minds. An inward desire to love and do His Law. Human conscience merely warns us of His Law, but cannot impart a desire to do it.

On Acts 16:14 you said, 'Lydia already worshiped God. I would say Lydia was a Jew or if not Jewish in nationality Jewish in religion. I'm convinced that being a Jew she most likely was not open to the gospel. God blinded the Jews to Christianity because of there rejection of Him. This is why her heart needed to be opened.

Regardless of her nationality, Lydia DID need her heart to be opened. For the doctrine of human ability to be maintained, God would have to open the hearts of every man without exception. Is that what we see around us? Is that we we see in the Scriptural recoed of the preaching of the Word? Not as far as I can see. Most sinners live unconcerned and die so. Some are troubled by the gospel, like Felix, but die in unbelief. The elect are opened to the Word and embrace it.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, ' A command implies ability. Would you say to a rock, "jump!" Of course not, because you would know it can't hear and respond.

A rock has no moral responsibility. We do. We cannot use the fact that our hearts are wicked and will never submit to God as an excuse for our unbelief. Let me be sure we are not talking at cross-purposes: when Calvinists say man is unable to repent and believe, choose Him, or similar expressions, we do not mean that he has not the means of doing so. He has a will, a switch if you like, to throw one way or the other. What we say is that his will is captive to his heart, his nature. Therefore he will NEVER repent, left to himself. He cannot because he infallibly WILL NOT. That is where the inability and accountability meet.


BTW, man is without excuse because he could clearly see and understood the divine attitubutes of God but REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS SUCH.

Hey, We agree on that!

This implies that he could have, like Job, Abraham, Isaac, David, Rahab and many other I'm sure not mentioned in scripture did. God credited their faith to them as righteousness. Though they themselves were not righteous in keeping the demands of the law.

Not so. Natural revelation did not bring these saints to saving faith. God further revealed himself to them, Heb.1:1.

I had asked, 'Knowing we ought to is not the same as being able to. Did any man (aside from One) ever love and glorify God as he ought?' to this you replied, ' Job was righteous in the eyes of God. Not perfect, but was considered "right" because of his faith.

Again, not through natural revelation and not of his own works. Even if we regard faith as something intrinsic to human nature ( which I do not, it is the gift of God), faith itself cannot save. Salvation is by Grace, through faith. Salvation required a Suffering Saviour. Faith could not provide the atonement necessary for sins. So no man could live up to the obligation imposed by his Creator - and the case is proved that ABILITY DOES NOT DETERMINE OBLIGATION.


'But God did provide a way. Jesus Christ. He demanded that we fulfill the law then he provided the means for us to accomplish it, through faith. The law accomplished its purpose by making us conscious of our sin and our need for a savior. It was never the laws purpose to save souls.

Exactly so. But the point being made was that man was obligated to obey the Law even without God's intervention in Christ. The obligation made him guilty before God, Rom.3:19. The whole world guilty before God and unable to obey.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
A rock has no moral responsibility. We do. We cannot use the fact that our hearts are wicked and will never submit to God as an excuse for our unbelief. Let me be sure we are not talking at cross-purposes: when Calvinists say man is unable to repent and believe, choose Him, or similar expressions, we do not mean that he has not the means of doing so. He has a will, a switch if you like, to throw one way or the other. What we say is that his will is captive to his heart, his nature. Therefore he will NEVER repent, left to himself. He cannot because he infallibly WILL NOT. That is where the inability and accountability meet.

[/q] That explaination sounds nice. I'm very fimiliar with it because it comes from the Calvinistic 101 class but unfortuately for you that explaination is not located in the scripture. The Bibe never speaks of mankinds inability to respond to the Holy Spirit wrought message of the gospel. It does speak about Jews being temporarily blinded or hardened as the gospel is being hidden from them, and it talk about man's inability to meet God's standard of righteousness in submitting fully to his Law, but beyond that you have nothing except Calvinistic dogma.

[qb]
Not so. Natural revelation did not bring these saints to saving faith. God further revealed himself to them, Heb.1:1.

You are correct, natural revelation alone is not enough there had to be special revelation as well. But Calvinists contend that mankind cannot respond positively to that either. Notice verse 2 of Heb. 1. How does God speak in those days? Through his Son. He spoke to the men of old through prophets and some believed. He spoke to the 1 century people through Christ and some believed and now he speaks through the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message and some believe. To say that revelation is not enough is not biblical, Calvinism adds to this revelaton by insisting that there is a second, inward, secret calling of God that is irresistable. Again this is not seen anywhere in scripture but only in Calvinistic dogma which uses vague proof texts as support.

But the point being made was that man was obligated to obey the Law even without God's intervention in Christ. The obligation made him guilty before God, Rom.3:19. The whole world guilty before God and unable to obey.

And my point was that God always provides a way for us to accomplish what He has demanded. He demanded perfection and provided a perfect savior to be imputed on our behalf through faith in him. He demanded it and provided the means, period.

If Calvinism is true then he only provided the means to some. Now I know you can explain that away by trying to say men are able but just aren't willing. Semantics.

Here is the question: Are they able to be willing? According to you, NO. Same thing. God is requiring something that he has not granted the ability for, that is not only unbiblical it is grossly unjust by the biblical standards of justice revealed to us about God through scripture.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, That explaination sounds nice. I'm very fimiliar with it because it comes from the Calvinistic 101 class but unfortuately for you that explaination is not located in the scripture. The Bibe never speaks of mankinds inability to respond to the Holy Spirit wrought message of the gospel. It does speak about Jews being temporarily blinded or hardened as the gospel is being hidden from them, and it talk about man's inability to meet God's standard of righteousness in submitting fully to his Law, but beyond that you have nothing except Calvinistic dogma.

John 10:25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

John 6:44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

John 6:65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

But these proofs of man's inability are part of the previous post on John 6 that you have not yet replied to.

To say that revelation is not enough is not biblical, Calvinism adds to this revelaton by insisting that there is a second, inward, secret calling of God that is irresistable. Again this is not seen anywhere in scripture but only in Calvinistic dogma which uses vague proof texts as support.

'My sheep hear my voice, and some might follow me'? That's what resistable grace would entail.

Jesus said in John 6:45, 'Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.' EVERYONE who hears and learns...Everyone to whom God reveals Christ; this cannot mean all who hear the gospel, for we agree that many reject it. So this speaks of the secret, inward call of God that only the elect hear.

If Calvinism is true then he only provided the means to some. Now I know you can explain that away by trying to say men are able but just aren't willing. Semantics. Here is the question: Are they able to be willing? According to you, NO. Same thing. God is requiring something that he has not granted the ability for, that is not only unbiblical it is grossly unjust by the biblical standards of justice revealed to us about God through scripture.

Not sematics, my brother. 'Able to be willing'? You make God blameworthy for man's fallen condition. Why should God be obliged to change a sinners heart? Or if to enable him to change it? Would He not be just if He left all mankind to perish in their sins? Why is He unjust if He chooses to save some? Is He not God and free to have mercy on whom He will?

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:

John 10:25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

John 6:44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

John 6:65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

But these proofs of man's inability are part of the previous post on John 6 that you have not yet replied to.

I have been addressing these claims on many threads, its hard to know which ones you've seen.

Let me ask you a question: Why is Jesus' audience in John 6 and 10 unable to believe?

Not sematics, my brother. 'Able to be willing'? You make God blameworthy for man's fallen condition. Why should God be obliged to change a sinners heart? Or if to enable him to change it? Would He not be just if He left all mankind to perish in their sins? Why is He unjust if He chooses to save some? Is He not God and free to have mercy on whom He will?

ATTENTION ALL CALVINISTS: Arminians don't think the Calvinistic God is unjust because he only chooses to save some. We all deserve Hell and we acknowledge that!

We say the Calvinistic God is unjust because scripture reveals a God who says He desires and seeks to save all mankind and calls all to repentance and faith. This knowledge, with teaching that says, "God only permits some to believe and repent while leaving others without the ability to willing follow" is what we object to. And Romans 9 is not addressing that point of contention I am quite certain. Paul is addressing those being shown mercy (Gentiles) and those being temporarily hardened (Jews) not the elect and the non-elect as you presume upon the text.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said,
quote:Originally posted by Ian Major:
John 10:25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
John 6:44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

John 6:65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
But these proofs of man's inability are part of the previous post on John 6 that you have not yet replied to. [end quote]

I have been addressing these claims on many threads, its hard to know which ones you've seen.
Let me ask you a question: Why is Jesus' audience in John 6 and 10 unable to believe?

On this thread you asked me to respond to John 6. See post of Feb.7.

Answer: 'But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep' and 'no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father'.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Follow up question: Why can't they believe, come to him or be his sheep? And why hasn't God granted for them to come to Jesus?

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, Follow up question: Why can't they believe, come to him or be his sheep? And why hasn't God granted for them to come to Jesus?

Same answer as before for why they can't believe and come to Him.

Why has God not granted them this? Because He did not set His love upon them and choose them to be saved. Why did He not? He doesn't say, except that He is God and free to have mercy on whom He will.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Why has God not granted them this? Because He did not set His love upon them and choose them to be saved.

This is where you make your mistake. You have absolutely no biblical support for this statement. Now, I'm about to show you from the scripture exactly why these people Jesus is addressing in the verses you presented could not believe.

First, who is Jesus addressing in these passages? Jews.

Question: What is unique about the Jews in the 1st century church?

Answer: They are being temporarily hardened as the Gentiles are being grafted in. (Acts 28:21-28; Romans 9-11)

John 12:39: Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."

You think that the people Jesus is speaking to in the book of John can't come to him because they are Totally Depraved and God hasn't chosen to change them so that they can believe. That is NOT what the scriptures say. It says they have become hardened and that this hardening is temporary. And that if they were not hardened then they could see, hear, understand and believe.

Why do you think Jesus speaks about hiding the gospel in parables from the Jews? Why hide something from people who are born unable to understand it or believe it anyway? The reason they can't believe it is because Jesus is hiding it from them so they won't believe it. Why? He must accomplish a purpose through their hardenness. If they believed they wouldn't crucify him nor would they have allowed the Gentiles to be grafted in (Paul explains all of this in detail in Romans 11).

Look back at those passages you quoted with in this context and see if it doesn't make perfect since:

"No one (of you) can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." In other words, none of you Jews can come to Jesus while here in the flesh and learn from him except the 12 God gave for that purpose, namely the apostles to which Jesus refers to later in John 6. John 17 refers to the 12 as those given to Christ by the Father. He is speaking in the present tense about the current situation, not about the nature of all mankind at all time. No one at that time could come to him because it wasn't time yet. It hadn't been granted to them by the Father yet. Why because God's purpose had to be fulfilled first. That can't be applied to a doctrine of the nature of all mankind.

 

[humbleherc]

Ian in my weak way of thinking you are right.Don't listen to these modern Eliphaz,Bildad,Zophar people.Many of them are the people of the flood.The devils flood.Here is a site worth reading i think.On the free-willingnism bla,bla. http://www.the-remnant.com/backissue5.htm

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Dear Folks

From my experience, most who object to God’s sovereignty in salvation do so, not from studying the Bible, but from instinctive presuppositions we held as unbelievers. Our ideas of ‘fairness’ that we correctly apply to man are transferred to our idea of how God should behave. This was how I thought as a new believer. This is what coloured my reading of the Scriptures for some time. But eventually as I studied the Scriptures I began to have problems.

Let me say to my brothers and sisters who hold to the sovereignty of man’s free-will, that it is a dangerous place to be. Your ‘defence’ of the fairness of God will break down under scrutiny of the Word – and you will be forced to either:
1. Stop thinking about it, just repeat the old phrases.
2. Re-interpret several of the key doctrines of Scripture, to accommodate Freewillism.
3. Abandon the faith altogether, on the basis that Scripture reveals a God whom you cannot respect.

I hope you are at none of these stages, and are open to be persuaded by the Word. But I have encountered all of these in my time.

Type 1 is common among believers. It is a trap we all can fall into about any doctrine. Self-examination and prayer is the cure.

Type 2 folk are in immediate danger of apostasy, if not already gone. An example of such is Clark Pinnock. He moved from being a Calvinist, to Arminianism, to Open Theism. When we are offended by God’s absolute sovereignty, our pursuit of free-willism cannot be satisfied by denying unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc. It must take us to where God is a hostage to our sovereign will. God is not allowed to intervene in our affairs in anyway to affect our choice. Pinnock and Open Theism see God unable to know all the future, because our wills may change it. Of course, not all are as far gone as Pinnock – but I’ve encountered brethren who argue for a second chance for the dead – so that we all have an equal opportunity to believe. Never mind the Scripture that reveals judgement as the follow-on from death. Others are driven to Annihilationism in their defence of God’s fairness. They just cannot conceive their God being so unjust as to punish man eternally.

Type 3 is the logical end of free-willism. The thinking anti-Calvinist will eventually conclude that the God revealed in the Bible is a dictator, therefore the Scriptures are merely the words of men, and God – if He exists – is unknowable. I debated on-line with such a man, one who also once held to Calvinism but eventually ran a web-site devoted to atheism. All on the basis of man’s objection to God’s sovereignty.

Does God have to meet human standards of fairness or is He far above our judgement? With Job I think we all should say,

"I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?'
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, "I will question you, and you shall answer Me.'


"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:2-6

In Him

Ian

 

[humbleherc]

Job spoke very plain in 23:13,14

Originally posted by herc:
Ian in my weak way of thinking you are right.Don't listen to these modern Eliphaz,Bildad,Zophar people.Many of them are the people of the flood.The devils flood.Here is a site worth reading i think.On the free-willingnism bla,bla. http://www.the-remnant.com/backissue5.htm


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ian Major:
Dear Folks

From my experience, most who object to God’s sovereignty in salvation do so, not from studying the Bible, but from instinctive presuppositions we held as unbelievers. Our ideas of ‘fairness’ that we correctly apply to man are transferred to our idea of how God should behave. This was how I thought as a new believer. This is what coloured my reading of the Scriptures for some time. But eventually as I studied the Scriptures I began to have problems.

Let me say to my brothers and sisters who hold to the sovereignty of man’s free-will, that it is a dangerous place to be. Your ‘defence’ of the fairness of God will break down under scrutiny of the Word – and you will be forced to either:
1. Stop thinking about it, just repeat the old phrases.
2. Re-interpret several of the key doctrines of Scripture, to accommodate Freewillism.
3. Abandon the faith altogether, on the basis that Scripture reveals a God whom you cannot respect.

I hope you are at none of these stages, and are open to be persuaded by the Word. But I have encountered all of these in my time.

Type 1 is common among believers. It is a trap we all can fall into about any doctrine. Self-examination and prayer is the cure.

Type 2 folk are in immediate danger of apostasy, if not already gone. An example of such is Clark Pinnock. He moved from being a Calvinist, to Arminianism, to Open Theism. When we are offended by God’s absolute sovereignty, our pursuit of free-willism cannot be satisfied by denying unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc. It must take us to where God is a hostage to our sovereign will. God is not allowed to intervene in our affairs in anyway to affect our choice. Pinnock and Open Theism see God unable to know all the future, because our wills may change it. Of course, not all are as far gone as Pinnock – but I’ve encountered brethren who argue for a second chance for the dead – so that we all have an equal opportunity to believe. Never mind the Scripture that reveals judgement as the follow-on from death. Others are driven to Annihilationism in their defence of God’s fairness. They just cannot conceive their God being so unjust as to punish man eternally.

Type 3 is the logical end of free-willism. The thinking anti-Calvinist will eventually conclude that the God revealed in the Bible is a dictator, therefore the Scriptures are merely the words of men, and God – if He exists – is unknowable. I debated on-line with such a man, one who also once held to Calvinism but eventually ran a web-site devoted to atheism. All on the basis of man’s objection to God’s sovereignty.

Does God have to meet human standards of fairness or is He far above our judgement? With Job I think we all should say,

"I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?'
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, "I will question you, and you shall answer Me.'


"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:2-6

In Him

Ian

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[humbleherc]

Ian here is a site also for you. http://www.primitivebaptist.org/

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Dear Folks

From my experience, most who object to God’s sovereignty in salvation do so, not from studying the Bible, but from instinctive presuppositions we held as unbelievers. Our ideas of ‘fairness’ that we correctly apply to man are transferred to our idea of how God should behave. This was how I thought as a new believer. This is what coloured my reading of the Scriptures for some time. But eventually as I studied the Scriptures I began to have problems.

Let me say to my brothers and sisters who hold to the sovereignty of man’s free-will, that it is a dangerous place to be. Your ‘defence’ of the fairness of God will break down under scrutiny of the Word – and you will be forced to either:
1. Stop thinking about it, just repeat the old phrases.
2. Re-interpret several of the key doctrines of Scripture, to accommodate Freewillism.
3. Abandon the faith altogether, on the basis that Scripture reveals a God whom you cannot respect.

I hope you are at none of these stages, and are open to be persuaded by the Word. But I have encountered all of these in my time.

Type 1 is common among believers. It is a trap we all can fall into about any doctrine. Self-examination and prayer is the cure.

Type 2 folk are in immediate danger of apostasy, if not already gone. An example of such is Clark Pinnock. He moved from being a Calvinist, to Arminianism, to Open Theism. When we are offended by God’s absolute sovereignty, our pursuit of free-willism cannot be satisfied by denying unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc. It must take us to where God is a hostage to our sovereign will. God is not allowed to intervene in our affairs in anyway to affect our choice. Pinnock and Open Theism see God unable to know all the future, because our wills may change it. Of course, not all are as far gone as Pinnock – but I’ve encountered brethren who argue for a second chance for the dead – so that we all have an equal opportunity to believe. Never mind the Scripture that reveals judgement as the follow-on from death. Others are driven to Annihilationism in their defence of God’s fairness. They just cannot conceive their God being so unjust as to punish man eternally.

Type 3 is the logical end of free-willism. The thinking anti-Calvinist will eventually conclude that the God revealed in the Bible is a dictator, therefore the Scriptures are merely the words of men, and God – if He exists – is unknowable. I debated on-line with such a man, one who also once held to Calvinism but eventually ran a web-site devoted to atheism. All on the basis of man’s objection to God’s sovereignty.

Does God have to meet human standards of fairness or is He far above our judgement? With Job I think we all should say,

"I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?'
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, "I will question you, and you shall answer Me.'


"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:2-6

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, This is where you make your mistake. You have absolutely no biblical support for this statement. Now, I'm about to show you from the scripture exactly why these people Jesus is addressing in the verses you presented could not believe.
First, who is Jesus addressing in these passages? Jews.

Correct.

Question: What is unique about the Jews in the 1st century church?
Answer: They are being temporarily hardened as the Gentiles are being grafted in. (Acts 28:21-28; Romans 9-11)

Wrong! What was true of those Jews in the 1st century is still true today. Hear what Paul says in Romans 11: 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

quote: John 12:39: Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."
You think that the people Jesus is speaking to in the book of John can't come to him because they are Totally Depraved and God hasn't chosen to change them so that they can believe. That is NOT what the scriptures say. It says they have become hardened and that this hardening is temporary. And that if they were not hardened then they could see, hear, understand and believe.

Why do you think Jesus speaks about hiding the gospel in parables from the Jews? Why hide something from people who are born unable to understand it or believe it anyway? The reason they can't believe it is because Jesus is hiding it from them so they won't believe it. Why? He must accomplish a purpose through their hardenness. If they believed they wouldn't crucify him nor would they have allowed the Gentiles to be grafted in (Paul explains all of this in detail in Romans 11).

Look back at those passages you quoted with in this context and see if it doesn't make perfect since:
"No one (of you) can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." In other words, none of you Jews can come to Jesus while here in the flesh and learn from him except the 12 God gave for that purpose, namely the apostles to which Jesus refers to later in John 6. John 17 refers to the 12 as those given to Christ by the Father. He is speaking in the present tense about the current situation, not about the nature of all mankind at all time. No one at that time could come to him because it wasn't time yet. It hadn't been granted to them by the Father yet. Why because God's purpose had to be fulfilled first. That can't be applied to a doctrine of the nature of all mankind.

An interesting interpretation. I thought Jesus spoke of men coming to in in the sense of beleiving and trusting in him. For He says in Jn.6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him and continues with and I will raise him up at the last day. This suggests more than that these Jews could not become apostles. Again He says to these Jews in the next verse, Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. EVERYONE is limited to the Twelve? This is an example of the damage you do in restricting what has been taken to the hearts of God's people down the ages.

You also do not deal with the reason Christ gave for their unbelief, Jn.10:26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 2 Not a temporary hardening, but a permanent state. They were not those for whom the Good Shepherd would lay down His life.

Here is something that does deal with the apostles: 6:64But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." This man had become an apostle - but he hadn't come to Christ. And his hardening was not temporary - he died as the son of perdition and when to his place.

What does this interpretation of hardening you present do for free-willism? As Paul indicated, the hardening of the majority of the Jews is temporary only in the sense of nationally. The individuals throughout the centuries have lived and died in this hardness. If God is free to keep them in blindness until their death (and therefore damnation), why must it be different for Gentiles?

Yes, the reason why God speaks of blinding folk whom I allege are already blind (in Total Depravity) needs some thought. The best I can think of at the moment is God is speaking of the outward working of inward realities regarding a specific nation. All mankind are blind in the Total Depravity sense. But as the gospel goes out to all the world, one could have expected the Jewish people to overwhelmingly repent and believe, since they were the nation chosen and favoured of God. But that is not God's plan. To the Jews God has appointed to leave the bulk of them in unbelief. He will not come to them in salvation but rather leave them in unbelief. Moses and all the prophets and the word of His Son Himself and the church sent by Him will fall on deaf ears. Compared to what could have been expected, this is truly a blinding sent of God.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:

Wrong! What was true of those Jews in the 1st century is still true today. Hear what Paul says in Romans 11: 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

There are a couple of ways to understand this verse. Either of which can still work within my interpretation of hardening. This could mean (1) that all Jews are going to remain blind until every Gentile nation hears the message or (2) that Jews are going to remain blind until the fulness of time has come for the Gentiles to be ingrafted and accepted as a part of the body of Christ in the covenant of Grace.

Here is what Adam Clarke wrote:

We should not restrict the meaning of these words too much, by imagining, 1. That the fullness must necessarily mean all the nations of the universe, and all the individuals of those nations: probably, no more than a general spread of Christianity over many nations which are now under the influence of Pagan or Mohammedan superstition may be what is intended.

2. We must not suppose that the coming in here mentioned necessarily means, what most religious persons understand by conversion, a thorough change of the whole heart and the whole life: the acknowledgment of the Divine mission of our Lord, and a cordial embracing of the Christian religion, will sufficiently fulfill the apostle's words. If we wait for the conversion of the Jews till such a time as every Gentile and Mohammedan soul shall be, in this especial sense, converted to God, then-we shall wait for ever.

So even if you take this passage to mean that Jews are still being Judicially hardened today as they were in the 1st century it doesn't really affect my interpretation of John 6 and 10. There are still Jews who are being blinded for a direct purpose and it is not related to the Calvinistic premise of Total Depravity.

I believe the hardening ended after Christ's assention. This is very debatable and I may be persuaded to change my views. But the reason I believe this is because of the records in Acts of so many of those who were said to have crucified the Christ coming to believe in him. It seems as if after Peter and Paul are called to preach to the Gentiles that there is a provoking that takes place at that time as Jewish believers begin to enter the church as well. This causes some of the tension with the Judiazers as we see in the letter to the Galatians. Also, if you notice in Romans 11 Paul clearly shows that the Jews can be grafted back into the vine when they leave their unbelief. He also seems to think he may be to one to bear the fruit of some of the Jews being saved (verse 14). Now if Paul believed that this hardening, or this "spirit of stupor" was going to remain on the Jews for a long time why would he speak about their being provoked to jealousy and be saved by his preaching? He must have believed this hardening was going to be lifted during his lifetime. Just some thoughts to consider. Either way though, the hardening of the Jews still stand in stark contradiction to the Calvinistic rendering of John 6 and 10 because it give the REAL reason Jesus' audence was UNABLE to come to him and believe. It had nothing to do with Total Depravity or the lack of God's desire to save them.

You want to know God's desire? Read this...

Mt 23:37 -
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

An interesting interpretation. I thought Jesus spoke of men coming to in in the sense of beleiving and trusting in him. For He says in Jn.6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him and continues with and I will raise him up at the last day. This suggests more than that these Jews could not become apostles.

He did speak of them coming to him as in believing. In fact, it even refers to their lack of belief in John 6. Being a follower of Christ was discipleship and that was reserved for the apostles at that time. If you notice there were some who followed and even were said to have believed but Christ wouldn't entrust himself to them because it was their time and they hadn't been given to him by the Father. (Read John 2:23-24)

Again He says to these Jews in the next verse, Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. EVERYONE is limited to the Twelve? This is an example of the damage you do in restricting what has been taken to the hearts of God's people down the ages.

You need to understand that everything that is true of believers is true of the apostles, but not everything that is true of the apostles is true of all believers. They were given special authority, we are not. They were given miracioulous abilities that I don't believe we possess (some debate this but I don't want to go there). They were given the WORDS of God to give to us, we are not. In short they were taught from above. Are we? I'll be honest and say that I learned from my parents, not from some special inspiration as it was with the apostles. That is what set them apart from the rest. Yes, they will be raised up in the last day, but just because it is true of them and us, doesn't mean everything he says about them also applies to us in the same manner. (That's a fallacy of deductive reasoning, I can explain further if I need to)

You also do not deal with the reason Christ gave for their unbelief, Jn.10:26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 2 Not a temporary hardening, but a permanent state. They were not those for whom the Good Shepherd would lay down His life.

I did give you a reason for their unbelief. John 12:39-40.

I believe "sheep" is a reference for those Jews who were chosen by God to carry the message of the cross to the world. Sheep were believers. But you must understand, that only certain Jews were being allowed entrance through belief...his sheep. The rest were being hardened. They could later become a sheep once that was granted to them. In short, I believe that God was choosing to reveal himself to some and not others while Christ was here on earth. He was choosing some and passing by others. He was drawing some to himself by irresisable means in order to accomplish a purpose through them. But when Christ was raised up he drew all men to himself (Jn 12). The blinders were lifted, it was finished, the curtain was torn and God's holiness was revealed for the entire world to see.

Calvinists make the mistake of taking God's choices during these unique days and apply them to a docrtine for how God saves everyone.

Proof that God sovereignly elects and irresistably calls his divine mesengers is not proof that God does the same with their audiences. That is a key point often ignored by Calvinists.

Here is something that does deal with the apostles: 6:64But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." This man had become an apostle - but he hadn't come to Christ. And his hardening was not temporary - he died as the son of perdition and when to his place.

Judas can be compared to Pharoah. God chose to harden him in his unbelief and use his sinful disobedience to bring about God's purpose. He died, by his own choice, in that rebellion. Is God to blame? Acts 2 and Romans 9 answer that question. If you notice that when the 12 are mentioned the author usually sets Judas apart as the deciever because that is what he was given by God for. That changes nothing in regard to my interpretions.

What does this interpretation of hardening you present do for free-willism? As Paul indicated, the hardening of the majority of the Jews is temporary only in the sense of nationally. The individuals throughout the centuries have lived and died in this hardness. If God is free to keep them in blindness until their death (and therefore damnation), why must it be different for Gentiles?

I may have already answered this above but let me just state again. Hardening has to do with one deciding to rebell after "clearly seeing" and "understanding" the truth but rebelling anyway. God's Judicial act of hardening, is when God seals them in that hardened state so that even miraclous signs and wonders or horriable plagues wouldn't convince them to change their minds. He seems to only do this when He desires to accomplish a direct purpose through their sinfulness (ie Pharoah). I hope that makes since.

Yes, the reason why God speaks of blinding folk whom I allege are already blind (in Total Depravity) needs some thought.

I want to thank you for your honestly on this one. Most seem to blow it off, ignore it or pretend its not a problem. I admire your objectivity and honesty in actually thinking through these issues. Please believe me, I am doing the same on my end. Thanks

The best I can think of at the moment is God is speaking of the outward working of inward realities regarding a specific nation. All mankind are blind in the Total Depravity sense. But as the gospel goes out to all the world, one could have expected the Jewish people to overwhelmingly repent and believe, since they were the nation chosen and favoured of God. But that is not God's plan. To the Jews God has appointed to leave the bulk of them in unbelief. He will not come to them in salvation but rather leave them in unbelief. Moses and all the prophets and the word of His Son Himself and the church sent by Him will fall on deaf ears. Compared to what could have been expected, this is truly a blinding sent of God.

Actually, you are saying exactly what I believe is the case (with the exception that you are trying to hold on to Total Depravity...why I'm not sure). This is the point I've been making. God's plan is to blind the Jews and ingraft the Gentiles. I can see someone taking a page out of their history book during the time that this is all happening and coming up with a Calvinistic understanding of how it all works. But you've got to remember that the time in which the bible is being written is unique. Paul, Peter and the other apostles were uniquely called and chosen to a very unique purpose. You must seek to understand the text within that context. If you show me how Paul was "set apart from birth" and "effectually called" to apostleship and draw the conclusion that God must save us all in the same manner, I would have to disagree. The uniqueness of his apostleship was based upon his being set apart and effectually called, I dare not claim that same status. If I do I only diminish his authority as being a divinely inspired messenger of God. He was chosen for apostleship, I am not.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, So even if you take this passage to mean that Jews are still being Judicially hardened today as they were in the 1st century it doesn't really affect my interpretation of John 6 and 10. There are still Jews who are being blinded for a direct purpose and it is not related to the Calvinistic premise of Total Depravity.


OK, leaving aside the truth or not of TD, your difficulty still remains. It is the nation, not the individuals of the Jewish nation who are temporalily hardened. The individuals are made up of (a) the elect, who will at some stage in their life repent and believe the gospel, and (b) the hardened, who will die in unbelief. God will not grant the latter repentance unto life. And they are not folk who have heard the gospel, understood it and rejected it. Most of them never hear the true gospel preached and are reared with a caricature of the gospel, often derived from the false gospel of Romanism and Orthodoxy. So, if God determines to leave such folk in unbelief, the same objection must be raised as you pose against Total Depravity. God determines that certain folk will not believe.

Your very complex weaving in and out of Scripture (I will not call it 'twisting', for that implies an insincere motive) is to no avail. Would it not be better to retain the plain meaning of these texts and accept that they teach Total Depravity?

I believe the hardening ended after Christ's assention. This is very debatable and I may be persuaded to change my views. But the reason I believe this is because of the records in Acts of so many of those who were said to have crucified the Christ coming to believe in him.

Paul wrote Romans after the initial great influx of Jews. And he also said the hardening was until the fulness of the Gentiles had come in. That ingathering is still in progress, as is the hardening.


It seems as if after Peter and Paul are called to preach to the Gentiles that there is a provoking that takes place at that time as Jewish believers begin to enter the church as well. This causes some of the tension with the Judiazers as we see in the letter to the Galatians.

No, my brother, quite the reverse. The Church was soley Jewish for some time, then majority Jewish for a longer time. Eventually the Gentiles were reached in great numbers and predominated. But that was late in the apostolic church. The tensions were caused by the influx of Gentiles. This did indeed provoke some of the Jews to jealosy, some to salvation and most to hatred.

Also, if you notice in Romans 11 Paul clearly shows that the Jews can be grafted back into the vine when they leave their unbelief. He also seems to think he may be to one to bear the fruit of some of the Jews being saved (verse 14). Now if Paul believed that this hardening, or this "spirit of stupor" was going to remain on the Jews for a long time why would he speak about their being provoked to jealousy and be saved by his preaching? He must have believed this hardening was going to be lifted during his lifetime. Just some thoughts to consider.

I believe it is a mistake to confuse being cut off from the Olive Tree with the hardening. The removal for unbelief may be remedied by repentance and belief. Being hardened can only be remedied by God revoking that hardness. Remember it refers to the nation - one section is the elect, the other the hardened.


Either way though, the hardening of the Jews still stand in stark contradiction to the Calvinistic rendering of John 6 and 10 because it give the REAL reason Jesus' audence was UNABLE to come to him and believe. It had nothing to do with Total Depravity or the lack of God's desire to save them.

As I pointed out above, yours is a version of TD that says certain men are unable to believe. you establish the principle that is the reason for your objection to TD in the first place - God would be unfair, acting against your concept of His love for all mankind. I suggest the plain meaning of the text should stand, that all mankind is in view, not just the apostles.

The question of God desiring to save all mankind without exception is open to debate. I hold that it is true in one sense - that He desires all his creatures to obey and be at one with Him. But He is free to leave them in their rebellion and decide to save only some, according to His good pleasure. Obviously, even from your own argument, He chose not to save those He hardened. He could have not hardened them, and maybe they would have believed at some stage (according to your free-will concept) - but He did not.

He did speak of them coming to him as in believing. In fact, it even refers to their lack of belief in John 6. Being a follower of Christ was discipleship and that was reserved for the apostles at that time. If you notice there were some who followed and even were said to have believed but Christ wouldn't entrust himself to them because it was their time and they hadn't been given to him by the Father. (Read John 2:23-24)

Yes, there were many false believers among the disciples. But it is wrong to restrict true believers to the apostles. Many others followed who were true disciples. Mary and Martha, etc. Believing, coming to Christ, was the effect of the Fathers gift to Christ and refers to all who believe.

You need to understand that everything that is true of believers is true of the apostles, but not everything that is true of the apostles is true of all believers. They were given special authority, we are not. They were given miracioulous abilities that I don't believe we possess (some debate this but I don't want to go there). They were given the WORDS of God to give to us, we are not. In short they were taught from above. Are we? I'll be honest and say that I learned from my parents, not from some special inspiration as it was with the apostles. That is what set them apart from the rest. Yes, they will be raised up in the last day, but just because it is true of them and us, doesn't mean everything he says about them also applies to us in the same manner. (That's a fallacy of deductive reasoning, I can explain further if I need to)

Of course I accept that. But surely you see that the Father's drawing and them being given eternal life, and the 'everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me' immediately following very strongly suggests He is referring all believers, not just the apostles. Only a great necessity would allow any other interpretation to be considered over the plain meaning. Your great necessity is that otherwise Calvinism would be proved correct.

I believe "sheep" is a reference for those Jews who were chosen by God to carry the message of the cross to the world. Sheep were believers. But you must understand, that only certain Jews were being allowed entrance through belief...his sheep. The rest were being hardened. They could later become a sheep once that was granted to them. In short, I believe that God was choosing to reveal himself to some and not others while Christ was here on earth. He was choosing some and passing by others. He was drawing some to himself by irresisable means in order to accomplish a purpose through them. But when Christ was raised up he drew all men to himself (Jn 12). The blinders were lifted, it was finished, the curtain was torn and God's holiness was revealed for the entire world to see.

Again, this is a desperate straining of the text to avoid the plain meaning. Christ speaks of having other sheep not of this fold, whom He also must bring. Sounds to me he is speaking of the ALL believers of all time when He speaks of His sheep. Your argument that these Jews whom He declared to be 'not my sheep' could later become His sheep means that 'sheep' can only refer to those believering when He spoke. But He said that He HAS other sheep not of this fold, whom He also must bring. These future believing Gentiles along with the believing Jews make up His sheep - in contrast to the Jews whom he described as 'not my sheep'.

Calvinists make the mistake of taking God's choices during these unique days and apply them to a docrtine for how God saves everyone.

Proof that God sovereignly elects and irresistably calls his divine mesengers is not proof that God does the same with their audiences. That is a key point often ignored by Calvinists.

Maybe this is because it establishes the principle of the sovereignty of God in salvation we already believe in. Why do you balk at the same thing applied to all that you can accept as applied to SOME men?

Judas can be compared to Pharoah. God chose to harden him in his unbelief and use his sinful disobedience to bring about God's purpose. He died, by his own choice, in that rebellion. Is God to blame? Acts 2 and Romans 9 answer that question. If you notice that when the 12 are mentioned the author usually sets Judas apart as the deciever because that is what he was given by God for. That changes nothing in regard to my interpretions.

From your perspective, I should think God was to blame - He stopped Judas repenting and believing. But my use of that text was to show the Father's granting to come to Christ was not concerning apostolic office but concerning true believing. So the text establishes the truth of man's inability to believe without that being granted by the Father.


Hardening has to do with one deciding to rebell after "clearly seeing" and "understanding" the truth but rebelling anyway. God's Judicial act of hardening, is when God seals them in that hardened state so that even miraclous signs and wonders or horriable plagues wouldn't convince them to change their minds. He seems to only do this when He desires to accomplish a direct purpose through their sinfulness (ie Pharoah). I hope that makes since.

Yes, that is partly true. God does harden those who clearly see and reject the truth. But not only so. Israel is hardened, yet most of its members have never heard the gospel. They live and die in unbelief.

I had said, 'Yes, the reason why God speaks of blinding folk whom I allege are already blind (in Total Depravity) needs some thought.'
I want to thank you for your honestly on this one. Most seem to blow it off, ignore it or pretend its not a problem. I admire your objectivity and honesty in actually thinking through these issues. Please believe me, I am doing the same on my end. Thanks

Let me also say Thank You for facing these issues with me. I too believe we are seeking God's truth, not ultimately seeking to defend our own notions.

I had said, 'The best I can think of at the moment is God is speaking of the outward working of inward realities regarding a specific nation. All mankind are blind in the Total Depravity sense. But as the gospel goes out to all the world, one could have expected the Jewish people to overwhelmingly repent and believe, since they were the nation chosen and favoured of God. But that is not God's plan. To the Jews God has appointed to leave the bulk of them in unbelief. He will not come to them in salvation but rather leave them in unbelief. Moses and all the prophets and the word of His Son Himself and the church sent by Him will fall on deaf ears. Compared to what could have been expected, this is truly a blinding sent of God.
Actually, you are saying exactly what I believe is the case (with the exception that you are trying to hold on to Total Depravity...why I'm not sure). This is the point I've been making. God's plan is to blind the Jews and ingraft the Gentiles. I can see someone taking a page out of their history book during the time that this is all happening and coming up with a Calvinistic understanding of how it all works. But you've got to remember that the time in which the bible is being written is unique. Paul, Peter and the other apostles were uniquely called and chosen to a very unique purpose. You must seek to understand the text within that context. If you show me how Paul was "set apart from birth" and "effectually called" to apostleship and draw the conclusion that God must save us all in the same manner, I would have to disagree. The uniqueness of his apostleship was based upon his being set apart and effectually called, I dare not claim that same status. If I do I only diminish his authority as being a divinely inspired messenger of God. He was chosen for apostleship, I am not.

Regarding the blinding of the Jews, I'm confused as to what you are actually saying about the individuals. If God has determined that most of them will remain in unbelief until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, how can any individual be free to believe?

I do not equate our calling to salvation with Paul's call to apostleship. I do equate it with his call to salvation. But if his salvation depended on God's effectual call, again I say you have established the very principle that you object to regarding God's fairness in choosing some and passing by others.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:

OK, leaving aside the truth or not of TD, your difficulty still remains. It is the nation, not the individuals of the Jewish nation who are temporalily hardened.

Its funny to me that when we are speaking about election Calvinists insist it is in reference to the individual but when we talk about hardening it must be about the nation. I agree with Calvinists who argue that nations are made up of individuals.

The individuals are made up of (a) the elect, who will at some stage in their life repent and believe the gospel, and (b) the hardened, who will die in unbelief. God will not grant the latter repentance unto life.

This is where you are missing it. Read Romans 11 again and you will clearly see Paul say that those who are currently hardened still may believe and be saved. Let me post them here for you to read for yourself:

13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, F57 if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Notice the bold sections. He is clearly speaking about his Jewish brothers who have been hardened. How does that fit within you system? You think there are two groups, the elect and the hardened, but that is not what this says. There are those currently being allowed to believe by faith and those who are being temporarily hardened until God accomplishes his purposes through them, but they very well could be saved. In fact I believe Acts records that many of them are.

And they are not folk who have heard the gospel, understood it and rejected it. Most of them never hear the true gospel preached and are reared with a caricature of the gospel, often derived from the false gospel of Romanism and Orthodoxy. So, if God determines to leave such folk in unbelief, the same objection must be raised as you pose against Total Depravity. God determines that certain folk will not believe.

That's just it. God didn't determine it, they did. As Matt. 23:37 clearly states, God desired to gather them under his wings but they were unwilling. And Paul says in these same verses that God "held out his hand to them all day." Job heard the same revealation and believed, as did Abraham. What about Corneliuous in Acts. He was seen as a God fearing man, yet he didn't yet know the gospel. People can acknowledge God by faith through what has been revealed to them, or they can choose to reject Him. Romans 1 says they are without excuse because they have "clearly seen" and even "understood" the divine nature and eternal attributes of our God.

Your very complex weaving in and out of Scripture (I will not call it 'twisting', for that implies an insincere motive) is to no avail. Would it not be better to retain the plain meaning of these texts and accept that they teach Total Depravity?

Think back to before you believed Calvinism (if you were not raised in it). Didn't you think it was a bit complex at first? Most do. Anything you haven't grappled with may seem complex, especially if it seems contradictory to your normal way of thinking. Its like those pictures that have two images depending upon how you look at them. You see one, then its difficult to make yourself see the other. The same can be true of doctrine. Don't dismiss something simply because it seems "complex" to you. It really seems quite simple to me and it has actually answered many of the questions I used to have about Romans 11 and other such passages when I was a Calvinist.

Paul wrote Romans after the initial great influx of Jews. And he also said the hardening was until the fulness of the Gentiles had come in. That ingathering is still in progress, as is the hardening.

That very well may be so. Many scholars who hold to my views do believe that to be the case. Both Calvinistic and Arminian scholars alike debate over this point. Either way, the translation offered for John 6 and 10 doesn't change in regard to Total Depravity. Some even agrue that all Jews will be given another opportunity to repent and believe in the last day. I wouldn't go that far, but there are some pretty interesting studies on that topic.

The tensions were caused by the influx of Gentiles. This did indeed provoke some of the Jews to jealosy, some to salvation and most to hatred.

Agreed. I said "Jewish" believers entering the church but I meant to say "Gentile". My point was simply that Jews were in the church showing that the hardening was not active any longer. Or at least you must say the hardening wasn't as strong, why else would so many unbelieving Jews crucify a man one day and believe in him the next? Acts clearly shows that many of those who called for Jesus Crucifixition came to believe in him. Had they believed prior to his crucifixion Gods purpose might have been twarted, thus the reason for his judicial hardening of them.

I believe it is a mistake to confuse being cut off from the Olive Tree with the hardening. The removal for unbelief may be remedied by repentance and belief. Being hardened can only be remedied by God revoking that hardness. Remember it refers to the nation - one section is the elect, the other the hardened.

NOT POSSIBLE. Why? Because as I've shown those who are hardened may still be saved according to Paul. The two groups in the nation of Israel are those who have been selected for the "nobel purpose" of apostleship (ie Paul and the apostles) and those who have been chosen for a more common use; temporarily hardened in their unbelief (ie the rest of the Jews)

Those who are hardened are there because of their rebellion and forced to stay their only temporarily by God who has a purpose to accomplish. Pharoah is a perfect parallel. He didn't want to let the people go, God hardened him in that rebellion so that the plagues would not convince him otherwise. Don't you think any normal hard headed man would get a clue after the rivers turned to blood? God had a purpose to accomplish in him, just as he did with the Jews of that day.

As I pointed out above, yours is a version of TD that says certain men are unable to believe. you establish the principle that is the reason for your objection to TD in the first place - God would be unfair, acting against your concept of His love for all mankind. I suggest the plain meaning of the text should stand, that all mankind is in view, not just the apostles.

So when Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father has ENABLED him." You think that means they really are able, but just not willing? The bible uses the root for ability, why can't we? Could it be that you see the problem this causes for your system so you must dodge it by saying, men are able, just unwilling and they are unable to make themselves willing. But where is that in the text? We know men are born unwilling, but where does it say that can't be persuaded by the powerful message of the cross?

I didn't say that only the apostles were in view. I said the Jews were in view. There are two types of individuals in the Jewish nation at this time. Those who have been given to Christ by the Father to learn from him and be sent out to take the message of the cross to the world and those who have been hardened, period.

The question of God desiring to save all mankind without exception is open to debate. I hold that it is true in one sense - that He desires all his creatures to obey and be at one with Him. But He is free to leave them in their rebellion and decide to save only some, according to His good pleasure.

I agree with this! It is my belief, and I believe the testimony of the text that God desires to save those who chose him. He leaves that choice to them, though his desire is quite clear.

Obviously, even from your own argument, He chose not to save those He hardened. He could have not hardened them, and maybe they would have believed at some stage (according to your free-will concept) - but He did not.

You're still not following what I'm saying. You think that just because God has judicially hardened someone that they have no hope of salvation. Quite the opposite. Look back over Romans 10 and 11 one more time and you will see that God's plan from the beginning was to harden the Jews in order to ingraft the Gentiles, SO THAT their belief would PROVOKE them to jealous SO THAT they might BELIEVE and be SAVED. Don't you see it? God's hope is to provoke their will. That's were jealousy fits in. Jealousy is a provoker of man's will, how does that fit into your system? Why would God need to provoke anything, doesn't he just effectually call them?

Sorry this is so long... I'll continue in the next post.

 

[Skandelon]

Here we go again.

Yes, there were many false believers among the disciples. But it is wrong to restrict true believers to the apostles. Many others followed who were true disciples. Mary and Martha, etc. Believing, coming to Christ, was the effect of the Fathers gift to Christ and refers to all who believe.

Oh I agree. I believe they were apart of the remnant who were chosen by God to carry out the necessary steps in this process. The women and others played a vital role in all that took place. But even as you have stated in regard to all of this we are dealing with nations in general, so when speaking doctrinally we might deal more in generalities, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to exclude all others. The point I was making is that people's belief at that time was not what qualified them to be a part of Christ's inner circle. He did not entrust himself to them because they hadn't been chosen for that purpose. The Father had given him those he was to entrust himself to.

Of course I accept that. But surely you see that the Father's drawing and them being given eternal life, and the 'everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me' immediately following very strongly suggests He is referring all believers, not just the apostles. Only a great necessity would allow any other interpretation to be considered over the plain meaning. Your great necessity is that otherwise Calvinism would be proved correct.

I can see how you may think that within the context of our discussion here. But I assure you from experience that those who have not yet adopted the Calvinistic dogma see this interpretation quite clearly. I suggest that you have looked at this one way for so long that it is just difficult for you to see it another way, yet it is very possible that you are missing the true intent of the text.

Plus, you still have the problem that Jesus' audience is unable to beleive because they have been hardened. Hardening is not from birth, TD is. Hardening is temporary, TD is not. You think they can't because they are TD, yet John tells us clearly that they can't because they are hardened. Which is it? If its both, then why would God hardened a man who was born TD? That's like blinding a blind man. It just doesn't work.

Again, this is a desperate straining of the text to avoid the plain meaning. Christ speaks of having other sheep not of this fold, whom He also must bring. Sounds to me he is speaking of the ALL believers of all time when He speaks of His sheep. Your argument that these Jews whom He declared to be 'not my sheep' could later become His sheep means that 'sheep' can only refer to those believering when He spoke. But He said that He HAS other sheep not of this fold, whom He also must bring. These future believing Gentiles along with the believing Jews make up His sheep - in contrast to the Jews whom he described as 'not my sheep'.

I don't agree. The other sheep that are not of this fold is a clear reference to the Gentile who are grafted in after Christ death and assention. The unbelieving Jews can become a part of that first fold he refers to if they leave their unblief as Paul says in Romans 11. "Sheep" here is just another way of saying "branch". He uses different analogies but they have the same meaning. You ingraft branches into vines and you herd sheep into pens. If you want to truly understand what sheep can come and go you have to read Romans 11 and the branches because that is where he is really addressing the theological implications of what Jesus briefly mentions in John 10.

Maybe this is because it establishes the principle of the sovereignty of God in salvation we already believe in. Why do you balk at the same thing applied to all that you can accept as applied to SOME men?

I'm not balking at anything. I just want to understand and interpret the text accurately. I don't object to Calvinism for all the same reasons some Arminians do today. God could have chosen that method of salvation, He is God and can do whatever he want. I just don't believe that was God's choice according to the text I read. I don't think God is unjust for not treating everyone the same. Romans 9 does address that. I just don't believe it is saying what Calvinists think it is. I think they take it further than the intent of the authors. Yes, Romans 9 does say God can justly hardened rebellious people while selecting some of those rebellious people to become apostles by changing their minds, because he has the right to make out of one lump of clay potter for noble purposes and common purposes. He voliated the will of these men, if you will, in order to guareentee that His purposes are accomplished. Paul felt it necessary to explain and defend God's justice in doing that, but Romans 9 never says anything about God choosing to save certain people to leave all others in a state where they never had hope or ever will have hope of salvation. That is just not in the text. If it were I would accept it. In fact, when I thought that is what it said I did accept Calvinism as being truth. Since then I've seen that the text doesn't support those claims.

From your perspective, I should think God was to blame - He stopped Judas repenting and believing.

Then you misunderstand my perspective. The scripture clearly tells us that Judas was to blame despite the fact that God had chose him for that purpose. Again, let me say, I'm willing to accept what the scripture does teach. I'm just not willing to go beyond that to a doctine that creates unnessary paradoxes. If you notice my explainations of these texts brings harmony to the text, not confusing paradoxes that we are told to just accept and get over if we really believe in God. God is the author of peace not confusion.

But my use of that text was to show the Father's granting to come to Christ was not concerning apostolic office but concerning true believing. So the text establishes the truth of man's inability to believe without that being granted by the Father.

And my point was that Judas is singled out for that very reason. He appears to have been given by the Father for apostolic means, but John knows better. He was given to fulfill the prophecies as a betrayer. John 17 points this out as well when it talks about "those the Father has given to the son."

Yes, that is partly true. God does harden those who clearly see and reject the truth. But not only so. Israel is hardened, yet most of its members have never heard the gospel. They live and die in unbelief.

Yet they stand in judgement without excuse because God has given them what is necessary for faith in him. Romans 1 explains this. Those in the OT didn't know the gospel either, but their faith in God was granted to them as righteousness. Rahab is a prime example as is Cornelious. This can lead to another debate but there are texts that speak of differing levels of accountablity for those who have heard and those who have not. (maybe we can go there later)

Let me also say Thank You for facing these issues with me. I too believe we are seeking God's truth, not ultimately seeking to defend our own notions.

You are a God send. We may never fully agree on these issues, and I am fine with that. But to have a brother deal objectively with the text in a civil manner is very refreshing on this board. I hope it will stay that way! I really enjoy hashing this out. I'm learning new things everyday.

Regarding the blinding of the Jews, I'm confused as to what you are actually saying about the individuals. If God has determined that most of them will remain in unbelief until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, how can any individual be free to believe?

Like I said, I believe the Judical hardening (God's doing) was lifted and that the "fulness" was more in reference to the full purpose of establishing the Gentiles as a part of the covenant. Otherwise, why would Paul speak as if he was going to save some of his Jewish brethern in the flesh. Maybe its that the Judicial hardening was lifted but their own stubbornness remains despite God's efforts through Paul to provoke them. Honestly, I think whatever side you are on you have to speculate on that point because not enough is really said about it.

But even if you were to believe that Jews are being hardened in the same way they were when Jesus was speaking in John 6 (which I really don't see how you could come to that conclusion) it wouldn't change the reason for their unbelief not being related to TD, therefore the problem remains for the Calvinist rendering of this text.

I do not equate our calling to salvation with Paul's call to apostleship. I do equate it with his call to salvation. But if his salvation depended on God's effectual call, again I say you have established the very principle that you object to regarding God's fairness in choosing some and passing by others.

Ian, I don't object to it because I find it repulsive, I reject it because its not supported in the text. You've got some scriptures calling all people to repent and believe and telling us that God desires to save whosoever will believe and then you've got texts that say "you did not choose me, I chose you" and you were "set apart from birth" etc. These verses together cause us to scratch our heads and begin the process of reconciling them.

Calvinists side with the latter verses because they apply them to everyone. Arminians who don't know how to deal with these issues, which is most of them today, just quote John 3:16 and stress the word WHOSOEVER but really don't know how to reconcile those verses to their understanding. I'm saying that their can be harmony. God does choose to allow some to believe and temporarly hardened others within the Jewish nation, which explains the Calvinistic texts. But this doesn't negate the other texts that speak of God's desire and plan to take the message of the cross to the world so that he could show mercy to all men.

Sorry, its so long.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said,

quote:Originally posted by Ian Major:

OK, leaving aside the truth or not of TD, your difficulty still remains. It is the nation, not the individuals of the Jewish nation who are temporalily hardened.

Its funny to me that when we are speaking about election Calvinists insist it is in reference to the individual but when we talk about hardening it must be about the nation. I agree with Calvinists who argue that nations are made up of individuals.

I did not say the individuals were not hardened, I said it was the nation that was TEMPORARILY hardened.

Read Romans 11 again and you will clearly see Paul say that those who are currently hardened still may believe and be saved... He is clearly speaking about his Jewish brothers who have been hardened. How does that fit within you system? You think there are two groups, the elect and the hardened, but that is not what this says. There are those currently being allowed to believe by faith and those who are being temporarily hardened until God accomplishes his purposes through them, but they very well could be saved. In fact I believe Acts records that many of them are.

If we took a snapshot of the spiritual condition of Israel at any one time, there would be saved and lost Jews. But that is not the same as the elect and the hardened. Lost is not synonymous with hardened. All Jews are born lost, but all Jews are not born hardened. Some of the lost will transfer into the saved part. None of the hardened will do so. All the unbelievers of Israel are broken off the olive tree, and some of them will be grafted in again. These are the elect. So if we return to the snapshot, we can say of the saved that they are elect. We can say of the lost that they may be either elect or hardened.


God didn't determine it [hardening], they did. As Matt. 23:37 clearly states, God desired to gather them under his wings but they were unwilling. And Paul says in these same verses that God "held out his hand to them all day." Job heard the same revealation and believed, as did Abraham. What about Corneliuous in Acts. He was seen as a God fearing man, yet he didn't yet know the gospel. People can acknowledge God by faith through what has been revealed to them, or they can choose to reject Him. Romans 1 says they are without excuse because they have "clearly seen" and even "understood" the divine nature and eternal attributes of our God.

When Scriture says God hardens, it does mean He determines to leave them in unbelief. It does not mean that He is to blame for their lostness, for you rightly point out they are to blame for their wickedness.

The question of God desiring their salvation does not preclude His hardening of them to destruction. The same language is used of God in dealing with the nation before the Exile. He held out his hand to them all day, in sending his prophets to plead with and warn them, but to no avail. Finally He gave them over to destruction.

Regarding Jews (or Gentiles)today who live and die without knowing Christ, are you saying they could have been saved by natural revelation? Yes, natural revelation makes men guilty of refusing the One True God, but it cannot save them. Like Cornelius, they must hear and believe the gospel to be saved. God provided that for Cornelius. But He did not provide it for millions of others. They were left in their sin.


Think back to before you believed Calvinism (if you were not raised in it). Didn't you think it was a bit complex at first? Most do. Anything you haven't grappled with may seem complex, especially if it seems contradictory to your normal way of thinking. Its like those pictures that have two images depending upon how you look at them. You see one, then its difficult to make yourself see the other. The same can be true of doctrine. Don't dismiss something simply because it seems "complex" to you. It really seems quite simple to me and it has actually answered many of the questions I used to have about Romans 11 and other such passages when I was a Calvinist.

Calvinism did not seem complex to me. It just answered questions I had never seriously thought about. When I did think about those questions, it was free-willism that failed to fit with Scripture. It was the system that took great manouvering to fit the pieces together - and then I found that the few that did appear to fit actually belonged somewhere else, for most of the rest fitted not at all.


So when Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father has ENABLED him." You think that means they really are able, but just not willing? The bible uses the root for ability, why can't we? Could it be that you see the problem this causes for your system so you must dodge it by saying, men are able, just unwilling and they are unable to make themselves willing. But where is that in the text? We know men are born unwilling, but where does it say that can't be persuaded by the powerful message of the cross?

I'm no linguist, but have you checked the usuage of 1325 in Strong's? Or in versions other than the NIV? 'Granted' or 'Given' is used for the Greek word. The same word occurs many times in John - just try fitting 'enabled' into them! Yes, I can see a dynamic equivalent version like the NIV using that term, for in a loose sense being granted permission to come is being enabled to do so. But this is just where the NIV often falls down. It expresses a meaning by terms that we think are literally accurate and we extrapolate from them. But the NIV meaning here is very narrow, narrower than we should expect. Better they had left it as 'granted' or 'given'.




Jealousy is a provoker of man's will, how does that fit into your system? Why would God need to provoke anything, doesn't he just effectually call them?

For just the same reasons He saves (usually) through the preaching of the gospel, rather than be immediate revelation - He ordains the means as well as the ends.


Plus, you still have the problem that Jesus' audience is unable to beleive because they have been hardened. Hardening is not from birth, TD is. Hardening is temporary, TD is not. You think they can't because they are TD, yet John tells us clearly that they can't because they are hardened. Which is it? If its both, then why would God hardened a man who was born TD? That's like blinding a blind man. It just doesn't work.

While it is true that hardness of heart was something many even of his disciples suffered from from time to time, it was not the judicial hardening God consigned the nation to. The national hardening is one of proportions: the'elect' and the 'rest', God determining that the latter are the great majority. And hardening is not the reason the Jews in Jn.10:26 are given for their inability to believe - it is because they are not His sheep.


I'm not balking at anything. I just want to understand and interpret the text accurately. I don't object to Calvinism for all the same reasons some Arminians do today. God could have chosen that method of salvation, He is God and can do whatever he want. I just don't believe that was God's choice according to the text I read. I don't think God is unjust for not treating everyone the same. Romans 9 does address that. I just don't believe it is saying what Calvinists think it is. I think they take it further than the intent of the authors. Yes, Romans 9 does say God can justly hardened rebellious people while selecting some of those rebellious people to become apostles by changing their minds, because he has the right to make out of one lump of clay potter for noble purposes and common purposes. He voliated the will of these men, if you will, in order to guareentee that His purposes are accomplished. Paul felt it necessary to explain and defend God's justice in doing that, but Romans 9 never says anything about God choosing to save certain people to leave all others in a state where they never had hope or ever will have hope of salvation. That is just not in the text. If it were I would accept it. In fact, when I thought that is what it said I did accept Calvinism as being truth. Since then I've seen that the text doesn't support those claims.

I certainly have learned a lot for our discussion, and I do grasp now that you are not advocating what most Arminians do concerning God being unfair. We still differ in what we see makes most sense from the analogy of Scripture, but your reasoning is much more Scripturally based than the 'God, That's not fair' type.

Again, let me say, I'm willing to accept what the scripture does teach. I'm just not willing to go beyond that to a doctine that creates unnessary paradoxes. If you notice my explainations of these texts brings harmony to the text, not confusing paradoxes that we are told to just accept and get over if we really believe in God. God is the author of peace not confusion.

Harmony perhaps, but at the expense of accuracy, in my opinion. Also, I believe if we widen the scope of our Scripture search to include other aspects of God's salvation, the harmony be even more obviously lacking.

If we turn now from Total Depravity that we debated via John 6 and 10, to the question of Unconditional Election that might advance our knowledge.

Unconditional Election is the real bug-bear for the question of God being unfair or not. All the other points of Calvinism are incidental if this one is proved.

Here's the text we can open with;
I Corinthians 1: 26For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
29 so that no man may boast before God.
To me this text says clearly that God has determined that many more of the foolish/base will believe than of the wise/noble. If man has the ultimate veto on his own salvation, God would have had to accept whatever man's choices threw up.

How can Free-will explain this text?

In Him

Ian