God, That's not fair!

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I don't see any such distinction between the hardened, as those it is permanent, and those who it is temporary, Of course, when the national hardening is over, for those who continue to reject the truth it will in effect become permanent. But not because God did not want them to ever be saved.

AMEN Eric!

This is what I've been trying to say. Those hardened are:
(1) NOT born that way as Total Depravity teaches
(2) NOT unwanted by God for salvation as Unconditional Election teaches
(3) NOT destined for hell as Limited Atonement implies

The Hardened CANNOT be the reprobates of Calvinistic doctrine!

Ian, you said, "Regarding hardening of any individual, whether pharaoh or Jews, they were not innocent to begin with."

You are right. Orginal sin teaches that we are all born guilty and we agree with that, we just disagree with the part that says men are born unable to see, hear, understand and believe the gospel message. That discribes one who has become hardened. Scripture is clear that people aren't born hardened. They BECOME that way over time. Read Act 28:21-28, Matt. 13, Mark 4, John 12 etc. and Romans 1 and you will see that men were not born "futile in their thinking" but that they became that way. They weren't born "given over to the lust of their flesh" they were given over later in life. They BECOME hardened, they aren't born hardened.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, regarding Rom. 9:24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Again that phrase also depends upon the perspective you view it. Adam Clarke writes:

quote:Verse 24. Even us, whom he hath called] All the Jews and Gentiles who have been invited by the preaching of the Gospel to receive justification by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have come to the Gospel feast on this invitation.

You interpret the call to mean the irresistable call, but why couldn't it simply be refering to the call of the gospel? It would make more sense in light of the fact that Paul is not even talking about those being saved and those being condemned. Instead he is talking about those being shown mercy and those being hardened. There is a difference.

It must refer to the irrestible call, for Paul says it includes the elect Jews as well as the elect Gentiles. The outward call extends also to the hardened, to those whom mercy is NOT being shown, and they are not included in the 'vessels of mercy'. By the way, Clarke seems to agree with me here, for he restricts the called to those who 'have come to the Gospel feast on this invitation.'


I agree that Paul is probably refering to the two groups, not necessarily individuals just like he has been doing throughout the entire discourse. Once again, why is it ok for Calvinists to interpret some passages in a national general since but insist that when speaking of election it must be applied to individuals.

Because some passages DO speak of the nation, others speak of individuals. It is discerning which is which that is the challenge. Surely neither side says all the references are to one sort? For example, Calvinists believe that God chose, elected, the nation of Israel to be His instrument for bringing salvation to His creation. They would carry His word down the generations and eventually the Christ would be born of them. National election. But God also chose, elected a people for Himself to be eternally saved. They were personally chosen by Him and added to His holy temple, stone by stone. Individual election.

Now, I also believe that nations are made up of individuals and if you notice he says that he has bound all men over to disobiedience. Would that be all individuals? Of course. All have sinned. So the same "all" who have been bound is the same all to which he shows mercy.

All men are included in the two groups, Jew and Gentile. But that does not mean Paul must be speaking of these individuals when he speaks of the groups. For example, he can say that Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.Rom.11:7. The nation as a whole, then the individuals within it, a distinction clearly being made.

He does use the word "may" but still its in regard to what he is going to do to the whole group, not what he may do to some individuals of that group. He could show mercy to all men by offering them the opportunity to enter the covenant through faith, which also makes more since because that is the foundation of the gospel..."go into all the world."

See my first point as to why 'vessels of mercy' cannot refer to all mankind.


True or false: Those judicially hardened by God refered to by Paul in Romans 9-11 may be saved?

False.

I had said, 'Remember, the elect Jews are lost until they are saved. These are the 'some' Paul is seeking. He doesn't know who they are, so he preaches to all. The elect come.'
So, you are saying some of the hardened Jews may be elect? That contradicts your earlier statement and proves the point I'm trying to make here.

No, that is the opposite of what I'm saying: LOST does not equal HARDENED. Elect Jews are LOST to begin with, just like HARDENED jews. But elect Jews will eventually repent and believe, unlike hardened Jews.

In order for Romans 9 to support Calvinism it must be shown that Paul is contrasting elect people with non-elect people. That cannot be established because I have clearly shown that those spoken of as being hardened in Romans 9 may still be saved and therefore cannot be the non-elect of Calvinism's doctrine.

Er, You have not. My distinction between LOST and HARDENED you failed even to grasp, as shown above.

Instead, they are the temporarily hardened Jews being contrasted with the Gentiles who are being shown mercy by being offered entrance into the covenant of faith and the chosen apostles, the firstfruits, reserved by God from Israel to carry the message to the world. There is nothing here that supports the idea that God has selected certain people in the world to believe and be saved while passing by others leaving them in a state of total depravity.

Your error on who the 'vessels of mercy' are undermines your whole case.

I hope to reply to your other post tomorrow.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Ian, I understand your argument on the issue of "being lost" verses being hardened. I do "grasp" what you are saying, but I'm trying to show you that is NOT possible from this text. Here is your version again:

Romans 9:7 What then? Israel [JEWISH NATION AS A WHOLE]has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect [REMNANT JEWS]have obtained it, and the rest [REPROBATE JEWS]were blinded. 8Just as it is written:"God has given them a spirit of stupor,Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear,To this very day."9And David says:"Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them.10Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,And bow down their back always." 11 I say then, have they [THE JEWISH NATION AS A WHOLE]stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.

Look again with me at verse 7.

In Israel there are:
(1) "Those who have obtained it" = Elect Remnant Jews
(2) "the rest" = blinded (or hardened)

Either they have obtained it or they had been blinded according to Paul. Paul doesn't leave room for a third group who haven't been "blinded" and haven't "obtained it" but will eventually will obtain it. Either they had obtained it or they had been blinded, period. Now, those blinded might later see after being provoked by jealousy but from this passage we have to understand that at one time they were "blinded" or hardened.

Therefore, any of them who came to obtain it after being provoked by Paul's ministry were apart of "the rest" who were blinded in the first place.

Just go back and read it without trying to make your system fit and its obvious that Paul is trying to convince his reader that those who have been given the "spirit of stupor," "cut off from the vine" and "hardened" are not without hope. They may still be "provoked by jealousy", "leave their unbelief", and "be saved."

In all my discussions with other Calvinists I must say you are the ONLY one who I've come across who has defended your position in this manner. Is there any scholars who explain your stance in more detail that I could read?

Thanks.

 

[Ian Major]

Dear Skan

Just a quickie on your last post, as I'm out of time to reply to the previous one tonight. Hope to do so tomorrow.

Look again with me at verse 7.
In Israel there are:
(1) "Those who have obtained it" = Elect Remnant Jews
(2) "the rest" = blinded (or hardened)
Either they have obtained it or they had been blinded according to Paul. Paul doesn't leave room for a third group who haven't been "blinded" and haven't "obtained it" but will eventually will obtain it. Either they had obtained it or they had been blinded, period. Now, those blinded might later see after being provoked by jealousy but from this passage we have to understand that at one time they were "blinded" or hardened.
Therefore, any of them who came to obtain it after being provoked by Paul's ministry were apart of "the rest" who were blinded in the first place.

I see what you are saying. It depends on whether you regard Paul as speaking only of the Jews at that moment, or of the Jews until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. I think the latter makes more sense. The elect remnant, not just the elect remnant at the moment Paul was writing.

In all my discussions with other Calvinists I must say you are the ONLY one who I've come across who has defended your position in this manner. Is there any scholars who explain your stance in more detail that I could read?

I don't know; I'm sort of working from first principles. I did check Hendriksen, who took the view that the hardening of the Jews as individuals was temporary but did not relate to the C v A debate. He seemed to suggest that some Calvinists differed. I hope to check later. It is both a strength and a weakness, to come without consulting commentators. You avoid the baggage, but you have to reinvent the wheel and also are liable to waste a lot of time.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, quote:Originally posted by Ian Major:

Ephesians 2 shows us that the heathen are dead in trespasses and sins, children of wrath, without God and without HOPE. No chance of being saved through natural revelation and conscience.

That may be so, but what about Cornelious as an example. He was said to have been a God fearing man. He became as such before the gospel was presented to him. In short, the natural revelation and his conscience is what God had used to bring him to the point that he was a God fearer.

Cornelius was a God-fearer, not by natural revelation and conscience, but by O.T. revelation - he had come to believe in the God of Israel. He wasn't well-respected by the Jews otherwise. Acts 10:22.

Would he have been spared in judgement had he died before Peter's visit? I don't know, I don't think we can know because the scripture doesn't entertain that option for us. It seems to me that these people were justified by their faith in God, regardless of their knowledge of the Christ.
That is not to say they could be saved apart from Christ's work, his blood atonement was needed regardless, but it could have been applied through faith regardless of the persons knowledge of such things.

Like the Jewish believers, Cornelius needed to believe the full revelation of the gospel. Were OT saints saved without hearing about Jesus of Nazareth? Certainly. But not without trusting in the coming Saviour. They looked for redemption for Israel. But for their salvation to be completed now that further revelation had come, they needed to believe in Jesus as that Saviour.

He sent them to Egypt and that solved the problem, nothing else was needed. Understand?

I agree.

Then you go on to say: "But then you say the means of jealosy, etc. are not needed." No, they are needed in order for these Jews to be provoked. I admit God could have chosen other means, like effectually calling, but because he chose these means why would he have chosen the other as well?

I see your point. But the use of means does not have to be restricted to one. Certainly one would do, but if God wants to use several means, why not? He does use natural revelation: in my own case, it was a big factor in Him getting my attention. He does use conscience: likewise with me. For the Jews it can also be their disquiet and envy as they see Gentiles absorbed in the Scriptures and rejoicing in the Messiah. Any or all of the means can be used - or none, in the case of imbeciles and the unborn and infants, in my opinion. God can reveal Himself immediately to such people and grant them repentance and faith. So it is not a matter of redundancy, it is a matter of God choosing to use various means to accomplish His ends.

quote: Back to your original dilemna: They cannot believe because they are not His sheep. Right, and they cannot be his sheep because he has hardened them in their rebellion for a time. The only ones he was allowing to "come in" were the "first fruits" or the "remnant". These are the people chosen from the Jewish nation, not because of any merit of their own, who God appointed to carry the message of the cross to the rest of the world. These are the first batch of sheep Christ is speaking of who listen and obey. The second group that he refers to who need to be brought in, or ingrafted by faith, are the Gentiles, who will listen (Acts 28:28). Then the Jews, if they leave their unbelief when provoked by jealousy may also be grafted back into the vine.

How can you not see the circular argument? They can't believe because they are not His sheep; they can become His sheep if they believe!!!

quote:Yes, as I said, a Catch 22. 'You do not believe because you are a broken off branch, but you can remedy that by believing'. No, Jesus was not uttering some sort of Zen paradox, rather He was plainly revealing that His opposers were of their father the devil. They did not believe because God had determined to leave them in their rebellion and not elect them to salvation and glory.
I gotcha now. Go back to Romans 11 and read carefully and let's see if the broken off branches can believe and be saved:..
There are other verses too, but this is enough to show you that those who have been broken off can believe and be grafted back in. How do you deal with this?

I deal with this by reminding you that you have confused being lost with being hardened: it was you who equated Not My sheep with being Broken Off. I have clearly stated that the broken off are all unbelieving Jews. Some of these are the elect who have not yet come to faith, the rest are the hardened.

quote:No, I don't see it. Paul is not speaking either about all Jews or all Gentiles. How can you even think that all Gentiles are 'vessels of mercy, 'prepared in advance for glory'?
I didn't say he was speaking of all Gentiles and all Jews. He is speaking in general about the nations. In general the Gentiles are believing and are thus called "vessels of mercy prepared in advance for glory." In other words Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is saying God has prepared this people to be vessels of his mercy all along. This is the mystery to which Paul refers throughout the scripture.
Just like when Paul later says, "30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law."
Does verse 30 mean all Gentiles have "attained righteousness?" Of course not. But in general, the Gentile nation has attained something that Israel, in general, has not. How? Through faith. Do all Gentiles have faith? Of course not but Paul is speaking in general here, that is quite clear. Can you deny that?

I absolutely deny it. Your statement, 'In general the Gentiles are believing and are thus called "vessels of mercy prepared in advance for glory.", is the strangest I have come across since I debated a Full Preterist. NEVER have the Gentiles in general believed. Especially so in the early days of the church. Surely it is evident that Paul is speaking only of the believing Gentiles. The only point he made was that Gentiles had believed, not THE Gentiles, not the nations. 'Vessels of mercy' refers only to elect Jews and Gentiles. Conversely, "vessels prepared for destruction" refers to the non-elect Jews and Gentiles.

quote:The bars holding them back is their evil heart. Unless God gives them a heart of flesh for their heart of stone, they will never repent and believe. So the Scripture speaks of God granting some to come to Christ, granting some to repent.
Their evil heart, which you believe they are born with makes them unable to believe, right?

Right.

That is what is holding them back?

Yep.

Then what did Christ mean when he said, "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."
Ian, notice the word "lest" in this verse. It means "otherwise". If they had not been hardened by God, given a "spirit of stupor" then they could have seen, heard, understood and they may have repented and believed. God didn't want this to happen at this time.

Yes, the terminology certainly admits of your interpretation. But many other Scriptures suggest the natural man cannot receive the things of God and is utterly opposed to them. Therefore we need to see if we can reconcile all the Scripture has to say on this matter. Which system better explains the totality of Scripture? Which system can offer the most credible explanations of the 'hard' texts? Calvinism has the least difficulty by far. Even from the debates on this list, one can see how far-fetched, or restrictive, unnatural must be the Arminian explanation of the main points of dispute.

But let me point out that your comment God didn't want this to happen at this time does not imply a temporary state for these Jews. Jesus refers to those who refused to believe in face of His witness, Mt.11:23And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."

Now to this 'hard' text for T.D. We read that not only God but also the god of this age has blinded certain people, 2 Cor.4:4. When did these blindings occur? Were they born blind? Were they born blind and later confirmed in that blindness? Or did they see clearly and then become blind? Did their blindness deepen? Romans 1 suggests a progression of blindness: one is born blind - not seeing the truth about God in its saving fulness - but seeing enough with our conscience and reason to leave us without excuse. We then descend into further darkness as we reject the light we have. Then God gives us over to the consequences of such a mind. Then the elect are granted to see His glory in the face of Jesus Christ. But the non-elect are left in their blindness.

I think it consistent with Scripture to conceive that out Lord spoke here in John 12 in figurative terms of a hardening in blindness on the majority of Jewish nation. The 'lest' then is idiomatic, not literal. It is to point up the extremity of their unbelief in the face of His great signs. I agree, this is harder to see than a literal undestanding of the text. But so is reconciling Abraham's comment in Luke 16 that "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."with Jesus' comment in Matthew 11 for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Why? Because he is a mean unforgiving God who just arbitrarily hardens certain people's hearts?

No, but because He is a holy God who is free to deepen the blindness of already spiritually blind sinners. Spiritual blindness is not a disability, it is a wicked condition, a state of enmity against God.

NO!!! They were rebellious to his offers of salvation for centuries (Matt. 23:37) and he sealed them in their rebellion for a time to accomplish His sovereign purposes through them.

They died in their sins. AD70 came upon them.

What purposes?
Would they have killed a man they believed to be the son of God? Of course not. Also, their hardening allowed a path for the ingrafting of the Gentile nation.

I agree with the purposes bit. It is the temporary hardening of the individuals that I deny.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said, many Reformed argue for the condemnation to Hell of the unborn.

I haven't encountered any. But I'm not that well read on all the theologians. Please let me know who they are who assert this.

I had said, 'Maybe Arminianism accepts that salvation is not given on the basis of equal opportunity - please let me know if that is so - but why then is the objection of 'unfairness' raised against the God of Calvinism?'
That is a big misunderstanding; that being born in a "Christian" society gives people more of an "opportunity".

I didn't mention 'Christian' society, though it does apply. I did contrast the socieo-economic situations of the base and the noble. If you are saying that where you are born gives advantage to your free-will decision, then man has not an equal opportunity to be saved, and the God of Arminianism is no more 'fair' than the God of Calvinism.

But being in a Christian culture a person may also be more likely to rebel against it (especially since he sees the imperfections of it which he sees as "hypocrisy"), or instead, take pride in it as if heritage alone saves him. Just look at the modern "Christianized" world (I look around at people, especially kids around the city today, and say "and these people have 'more chance to be saved' than others in the world? Just tell them about God and repentance and they'll spit at you, because they've heard it all before, and don't want anyone "telling them what to do"!) Those in other cultures hearing it for the first time may be more responsive, because it is new and different; rather than an old established system distorted and watered down by centuries of prominence; which they have long ago already rejected. This is precisely what happened with the Israelites as opposed to the Gentiles, and this was the whole point of Romans 9. God had raised them before others, but now they are hardened, while the others are opened up to. A big proof of this is passages like Matthew 21:31 "the publicans and harlots go into the Kingdom before you".

I fully agree that greater opportunity brings greater condemnation. Your argument however centred on base/foolish people being more prone to believe than noble/wise - and I pointed out that must make God unfair in Arminian terms. No equal opportunity.

It does not make God unfair in Calvinistic terms - He is free to save whomever He will.

(As for those who have never heard, most non-Calvinists would say if they pray for the true God to show Himself, He will make sure the Gospel gets to him so he can believe.

Calvinists agree.

Some point to Romans 1 and John 1:9, and suggest that every person has enough light by which they can repent and ask God to be saved.

Enough light to know they need to, not that they can.

Everyone religion had somewhere in it's pantheon or at least history, an "unknown God" (Acts 17:23) who was believed to be the Most High, and they could ask Him to reveal Himself. Supporting this is the fact that people like Abraham and Job were found "righteous through faith" even though there was no evidence of any special prior revelation to them by God, or even knowledge of God in their lands.

Yes, they could if they would. It is getting them to want to do so that is the problem. There is no one who naturally seeks after God.

You are completely wrong about Abraham and Job. In general, these men lived shortly after the Flood and would have had the witness of their fathers, not too distant from Noah. Specifically, God appeared to Abram and revealed Himself to him before it is written that he was righteous.

In Him

Ian

 

[Scofield]

As many have, I have also pondered these delimas. Here's some of my thoughts.

I told Fine Linen in another post that I am neither TULIP nor Daisy. Both can offer scripture in defense of their veiws. Likewise both make statements like "the Bible teaches." I don't think the Bible teaches either doctrine. If it taught one or the other, then it would plainly state yes or no. Paul was far to intellegent of a teacher to leave it debatable if he was attempting to teach one doctrine or another.

No doubt, our destiny is what it will be, but do we have a choice in it? Are some to be saved and some not, or can all be saved? Because this question can not be answered to the satisfaction of all men, I began to wonder if the question could not be wrong. In pondering that I began to see that salvation is not the question. In fact, this debate elevates man to a position that God had to be preoccupied with our salvation. No doubt, He worked our salvation and desires some or all to be saved. But What was actually being saved? It was God's glory. In John 17 Jesus was praying and clearly He is preoccupied with God's glory. Jesus, if you will, saved God's glory among men, and by that is our salvation. We like to say that Jesus would have died even if only one would have been saved. That saying is error. Jesus would have died even if none would be saved because His death was first about glorification.

God's purpose was for us to be in His image, an accurate representation of Who He is. Jesus fufilled God's purpose for man to be in His image. God's purpose can not be thwarted. Whether one obeys or disobeys, God is always shown to be God. But through Christ we can be part of His Glory. I wasn't destined to be saved, but I was destined to make God known. God reveald Himself in Pharoh's disobiedence.

So do I have a choice in my destiny? THe best answer I have heard is that one can make His choices, but not choose the consequences. I believe we struggle because we fail to remember that God is not like us. My destiny is what it will be, but God can do something I can not begin to comprehend. God can remember the future. After all, He is presently in the future as He is present in this moment. He is also presently in the past. God has placed us in time in order that we might experieince Him.

ONce I came to this understanding, my focus changed from a salvation focus to a holiness focus in order that I might glorify Christ by accurately representing Him. I also changed from wondering what is God's will for my life to what my life was for God's will.
Just some ponderings,

 

[John Owen]

Hi all.... just wantt o pass on an excellent resource applicable to this thread, its Calvin's rare:

CALVIN'S CALVINISM

Treatises on the
Eternal Predestination
of God the Secret
Providence
of God"

at http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvin/calvin_predestination.html

its pretty lengthy, but from what I have read thus far, it is a very thorough treatment of this important topic.... after copying it into Word, it ended up being 211 pages...

may it bless you as it has blessed me....

Sola Dei Gloria!!

 

[Eric B]

Eric said, many Reformed argue for the condemnation to Hell of the unborn.

I haven't encountered any. But I'm not that well read on all the theologians. Please let me know who they are who assert this.

There used to be a discussion board on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals site, and there were people there who argued that if you believed God forgave all unborn (i.e. apart from electing only some, reprobating others, like with everyone else), then you were denying they were sinners, or salvation by gace. I think Primitive Baptists might believe like this too, because they believe hearing the Gospel and beliving isn't even required for the elect to be saved. God just elects and reprobates people, born or not.

I didn't mention 'Christian' society, though it does apply. I did contrast the socieo-economic situations of the base and the noble. If you are saying that where you are born gives advantage to your free-will decision, then man has not an equal opportunity to be saved, and the God of Arminianism is no more 'fair' than the God of Calvinism.

Wasn't saying that.

I fully agree that greater opportunity brings greater condemnation. Your argument however centred on base/foolish people being more prone to believe than noble/wise - and I pointed out that must make God unfair in Arminian terms. No equal opportunity.

It does not make God unfair in Calvinistic terms - He is free to save whomever He will.

OK, I see now, you were referring to "wise/unwise". I saw "socio-economic conditions", and thought of the argument I have seen about those who never heard, so that's what I was answering.
But I think what I have said about wise/unwise, evens it out somewhat. Being wise can be an advantage, and it can be a disadvantage. A person's wisdom can be used of God to reveal Himself, and then do work for the Kingdom, or it can be used to create arguments and distractions against Him, and devise evil things.
But saying that He chooses and rejects people unconditionally and that He is more likely to choose someone who is unwise, compromises the supposed "unconditionality", regardless of whether it is "fair" or not.

Enough light to know they need to, not that they can.

Yes, they could if they would. It is getting them to want to do so that is the problem. There is no one who naturally seeks after God.

But responding to the light one has been given is not "seeking God" as if the person up out of nowhere had been "craving" (Gk.) God all along, and then found him on His own. This "seek God" is another big misunderstanding. Calvinists think it means man cannot even respond even when God "seeks" the person and gives him truth. It assumes that man can only respond by being imbued with some "unconditional election", and therefore, the calling for the rest only serves to condemn, but God can hold these people "responsible" (able to respond) even though they can't respond, and you people think it's unfair, but it's just "sovereignty", etc. But it's the calling or drawing of all that we see as being God's answer to man's inability to seek God on his own, not something else after that, with the calling or drawing being something that appears to be a genuine offer, but God knows it is not real if He did not unconditionally elect the person, and in fact only adds to condemnation. This is the heart of the whole issue, even if my side doesn't always articulate it like this, and seems to object based on "fairness". Is there "Good News" of good will offered towards all men, or only good news offered to some, with bad will and a legal trap for everyone else (in the name of "sovereignty"). This really is what all objections are based on.

You are completely wrong about Abraham and Job. In general, these men lived shortly after the Flood and would have had the witness of their fathers, not too distant from Noah.

Still, wickedness multiplied quickly, and most people soon forgot about God, and went back into idols.

Therefore we need to see if we can reconcile all the Scripture has to say on this matter. Which system better explains the totality of Scripture? Which system can offer the most credible explanations of the 'hard' texts? Calvinism has the least difficulty by far. Even from the debates on this list, one can see how far-fetched, or restrictive, unnatural must be the Arminian explanation of the main points of dispute.

Calvinism often reads things into texts to make them so "hard" in the first place (if by "hard" you men "seems to be unfair". If you mean "hard to understand", here too, they often use these texts to interpret the more clear ones, rather than the other way around, and think this is "harmonizing the totality of scripture"). Peter did warn that Paul could be hard to understand, and when you're used to a certain system of interpretation, or a preconceived ultimate doctrine, then seeing the proof texts in a different light will appear to be "unnatural", "far fetched", and those other things you said.

I absolutely deny it. Your statement, 'In general the Gentiles are believing and are thus called "vessels of mercy prepared in advance for glory.", is the strangest I have come across since I debated a Full Preterist. NEVER have the Gentiles in general believed. Especially so in the early days of the church. Surely it is evident that Paul is speaking only of the believing Gentiles. The only point he made was that Gentiles had believed, not THE Gentiles, not the nations. 'Vessels of mercy' refers only to elect Jews and Gentiles. Conversely, "vessels prepared for destruction" refers to the non-elect Jews and Gentiles.

OK, it's not completely accurate to say "gentiles in general", but the point was that the two groups Paul was discussing were physical Israel, and the truly saved. Israel was hardened, and the gentiles were opened up to, but of course, individual Israelites could still believe, and individual gentiles could still be lost. "Gentiles" is simply being used to contast "Israel". Many Israelites were trusting in their physical lineage to save them, but God did not raise the nation of Israel as a means of saving the individuals born into it. So they get compared to Pharaoh, who was "raised" for a specific reason in God's plan, and as far as salvation of them as a group is concerned, are "vessels of wrath". The group that saves, is the community of faith in Christ, which is of all "nations", not just Israel, but of course including believing Israelites. This group is the "vessels of mercy".

 

[Ian Major]

Eric B. said, There used to be a discussion board on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals site, and there were people there who argued that if you believed God forgave all unborn (i.e. apart from electing only some, reprobating others, like with everyone else), then you were denying they were sinners, or salvation by gace. I think Primitive Baptists might believe like this too, because they believe hearing the Gospel and beliving isn't even required for the elect to be saved. God just elects and reprobates people, born or not.

Thanks for that info., Eric. I'm more acquainted with mainstream Calvinists. Yes, one finds pretty weird ideas everywhere, even from otherwise reliable folk at times. I remember being shocked by a sound brother suggesting there could be other intelligent life in the universe. How he could entertain that possibility is beyond me, but it must have seemed OK to him.



Calvinists think it means man cannot even respond even when God "seeks" the person and gives him truth. It assumes that man can only respond by being imbued with some "unconditional election",

Imbued with a new heart. Their election occurred in eternity past.

and therefore, the calling for the rest only serves to condemn, but God can hold these people "responsible" (able to respond) even though they can't respond, and you people think it's unfair, but it's just "sovereignty", etc.

First, 'able' is not in mind in our use of responsible. 'Accountable' would be a synonym. I've used the illustration before but it may help to remind of my position; If I spend the rent money on alcohol and gambling, I am still responsible/accountable to the landlord for the rent, even though I can no longer pay. We spent our 'rent money' when Adam fell.

Second, We do not say God is unfair but sovereign. He is fair, it is Arminianism that says such action is unfair.

But it's the calling or drawing of all that we see as being God's answer to man's inability to seek God on his own, not something else after that,

Is every man without exception drawn to Christ? Those who never hear the gospel and live and die without God and without hope?

with the calling or drawing being something that appears to be a genuine offer, but God knows it is not real if He did not unconditionally elect the person, and in fact only adds to condemnation. This is the heart of the whole issue, even if my side doesn't always articulate it like this, and seems to object based on "fairness". Is there "Good News" of good will offered towards all men, or only good news offered to some, with bad will and a legal trap for everyone else (in the name of "sovereignty"). This really is what all objections are based on.

That is a very helpful clarification, Eric. Where we differ is on how we view the offer of the gospel to the non-elect. I say it can be just as genuine as to the elect, because it would result in their salvation if they obeyed it. The reason they won't is their sinful heart, not God preventing someone wanting to repent. 'Not real' would mean it was bogus, a promise that would not be fulfilled if acted on. Using such a faulty defination of 'not real', an Open Theist could accuse Arminianism of a bogus offer, since Arminians believe (as Calvinists also) that God knows beforehand who will believe. If He knows they will refuse, any offer to them must be bogus.



Calvinism often reads things into texts to make them so "hard" in the first place (if by "hard" you men "seems to be unfair". If you mean "hard to understand", here too, they often use these texts to interpret the more clear ones, rather than the other way around, and think this is "harmonizing the totality of scripture"). Peter did warn that Paul could be hard to understand, and when you're used to a certain system of interpretation, or a preconceived ultimate doctrine, then seeing the proof texts in a different light will appear to be "unnatural", "far fetched", and those other things you said.

Yes, we all have problems with the hard texts. I'm just suggesting that if we go through the Scripture and see which system throws up the most problems, I have found that Calvinism best gives a total picture.

The group that saves, is the community of faith in Christ, which is of all "nations", not just Israel, but of course including believing Israelites. This group is the "vessels of mercy".

I totally agree. The hardened Jews, along with the reprobate Gentiles, are the vessels of wrath; the elect Jews and elect Gentiles are the vessels of mercy.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
I see what you are saying. It depends on whether you regard Paul as speaking only of the Jews at that moment, or of the Jews until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. I think the latter makes more sense. The elect remnant, not just the elect remnant at the moment Paul was writing.

Thank you for at least letting me know that you see what I'm saying. It helps to know I'm being understood even if you disagree.

I might see your interpretation IF he hadn't said, "who have obtained it," as if he is specifically refering to past tense Jews who have already believed. Plus, the context of the entire passage lends itself to Paul describing a group of people who have been blinded and hardened but who still have hope of salvation. Your interpretation leaves those hardened without hope and that seems to fly in the face of everything Paul is seeking to communicate to his audience.

Plus, Ian you have to consider the fact the the hardening IS temporary. Now, regardless of whether you think "temporary" means that it has already ended or not you still have to see that it is going to end. What is "temporary" about the hardened state of Calvinism's reprobates?

Do non-elect reprobates within the Calvinistic system have hope of leaving this hardened state? No. So what would be Paul's point in stating that the hardening will end? This still just doesn't fit with the context of what Paul is clearly teaching.

 

[Skandelon]

Ian said: I see your point. But the use of means does not have to be restricted to one. Certainly one would do, but if God wants to use several means, why not? ... So it is not a matter of redundancy, it is a matter of God choosing to use various means to accomplish His ends.

I see your point as well. But originally when we first began talking about this issue I was merely trying to show that certain human means are rendered USELESS because of the one supernatural means that you believe God has chosen to use. Understand?

If the effectual call is truly the only means that works in bringing a person to saving faith then the gospel, prayer, signs, jealousy and other such human means that God has clearly implemented are really just for show. They accomplish nothing. They are rendered powerless.

This seems to contradict scripture because it speaks clearly about the gospel's power, the persuasion of signs and wonders, prayer, and jealousy as means God has chosen to provoke the will of man. This is typical of God. He usually accomplishes his purposes through human means and not supernatural interventions.

Plus, you have to deal with the issue that these human means are clearly explained and expounded upon whereas the effectual calling is not. In fact, as we have seen throughout history some who hold to Calvinistic doctrine neglect these means because their logic tells them all the other means are useless despite the biblical mandates.

How can you not see the circular argument? They can't believe because they are not His sheep; they can become His sheep if they believe!!!

I see your point, but you have ignored mine. Again, look back over my post about the ingrafted branch and I explain how the circle is broken.

I agree, they can't believe because they are not his sheep. BUT what does that mean? Does that mean they can never become his sheep? No, more so than becoming grafted back in to the vine which they clearly can do according to Paul.

Let me take it from a different angle. Sheep means chosen to believe, right?

Jesus says, "You can't believe because you are not my Sheep." In other words, "You can't believe because you have not been chosen to believe."

I agree with that. Only the remnant of the Jewish nation had been chosen to believe while Christ was on earth. It had not been granted to any one else at that point in human history. Why? If they all believed who would have killed him? He had a purpose to accomplish through there unbelief.

Keeping that in mind. Once that purpose was accomplished and God sent his messengers to preach to all the world, the veil has been split, and the way to salvation made open to all mankind, who can become his sheep? Everyone who believes.

But, I can hear you potesting, "NO, that have to be sheep before they can believe." Fine. Sheep are those who have been chosen to believe. After the cross, God chose to draw all men to himself. He desires all to believe; therefore all can become sheep in his fold.

In short, Jesus' audience could not believe because they had not been granted the ability to believe. That in no way proves that they didn't have that ability later.

I deal with this by reminding you that you have confused being lost with being hardened:

And I will remind you that those who were of the Jewish nation who had believed were called "the elect" by Paul and then he considered "the rest" to be hardened. Therefore the lost Jews at that point were the hardened ones, period. At least that's the way Paul explains it.

Your statement, 'In general the Gentiles are believing and are thus called "vessels of mercy prepared in advance for glory.", is the strangest I have come across since I debated a Full Preterist.

Then you are not very well read. You must read your opponents views if you are going to disagree with them so adamently. I've pointed you to an Arminian scholar who expounds on this view. I'm still looking for your scholar.

NEVER have the Gentiles in general believed. Especially so in the early days of the church. Surely it is evident that Paul is speaking only of the believing Gentiles. The only point he made was that Gentiles had believed, not THE Gentiles, not the nations.

What? This is the very issue Paul was dealing with. Many Gentiles were coming to faith and the Jews, for the most part, were fighting him. That is the issue he addressing throughout the gospels. A Jew of that day might ask, "If what you preach is true then why are so many of those heathen Gentiles believing you and so few of us good Jews not?" Paul's response is Romans 9-11.

'Vessels of mercy' refers only to elect Jews and Gentiles. Conversely, "vessels prepared for destruction" refers to the non-elect Jews and Gentiles.

I disagree.
Who has God bore with great patience? The Jews.

He has "held out his hands to them all day long" Paul explains in the next chapter. He "longed to gather them under his wings but they were unwilling" (Matt. 23:37).

Who has become fit for destruction by continually rejecting God's messengers? The Jews.

God hasn't really sent messengers to the Gentiles until Paul and Peter. Paul says they are different from the Jews because they will listen. (Acts 28:28) Why? They haven't been hardened.

Who, at this time in history, is God displaying his mercy toward? The Gentiles.

Look up the word "mystery" in the NT and see if that word is not directly linked to the ingrafting of the Gentiles through faith. That is one of the key points of the entire NT is that God has brought mercy to the Gentiles. The remnant of Jews have hand picked for a noble purpose, not based upon any good within them and the Gentiles are being shown mercy by being offered entrance into the covenant by faith. "The rest" had been hardened for a time.

Earlier I wrote: Their evil heart, which you believe they are born with makes them unable to believe, right?

Right.

That is what is holding them back?

Yep.

Then what did Christ mean when he said, "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."
Ian, notice the word "lest" in this verse. It means "otherwise". If they had not been hardened by God, given a "spirit of stupor" then they could have seen, heard, understood and they may have repented and believed. God didn't want this to happen at this time.

Yes, the terminology certainly admits of your interpretation. But many other Scriptures suggest the natural man cannot receive the things of God and is utterly opposed to them.

Let me stop you there. Be more specific. What scripture say that man cannot believe the gospel message. Now be careful not to go to the Corinthian passage that I think you are refering to because it is quite clear from that passage that Paul is not speaking about "natural man's" inabilty to believe the gospel. He is speaking about "the deep things of God." In fact, if you read on into the next couple of verses at the beginning of the 3rd chapter you will see that the "brethern" there in Corinth couldn't "receive" these things either. This couldn't be a reference to lost men's ability to believe the gospel because then Paul wouldn't have considered the people of Corinth "brethern."

Therefore we need to see if we can reconcile all the Scripture has to say on this matter. Which system better explains the totality of Scripture? Which system can offer the most credible explanations of the 'hard' texts? Calvinism has the least difficulty by far. Even from the debates on this list, one can see how far-fetched, or restrictive, unnatural must be the Arminian explanation of the main points of dispute.

I'm sorry. I'm not laughing at you. I'm just laughing because I was thinking the same thing about your explainations. Again, it is all in your perspective. I understand where you are coming from because I used to believe Calvinistically. Everything anyone says against Calvinism seems far fetched because you don't want to see it from that perspective. I won't convince you, all I can say is try to drop your preconceptions and debate the issues from the other side for while. If you are always reading the scripture with the idea in mind that you must defend Calvinistic thought you won't ever see beyond your blinders. Its only when you objectively view it that you will see both perspectives and be able to follow your own advice to "reconcile all the scriptures."

But let me point out that your comment God didn't want this to happen at this time does not imply a temporary state for these Jews. Jesus refers to those who refused to believe in face of His witness, Mt.11:23And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."

I agree that the Jews who remain in their unbelief will indeed be condemned and deservingly so, despite the fact that God hardened them (which btw is the issue Paul is actually addressing in Romans 9) But this in no way indicates that none of these Jews couldn't leave their unbelief and still be saved. This is just saying what will happen to them in the final days if they do continue in their unbelief.

Now to this 'hard' text for T.D. We read that not only God but also the god of this age has blinded certain people, 2 Cor.4:4. When did these blindings occur? Were they born blind? Were they born blind and later confirmed in that blindness? Or did they see clearly and then become blind? Did their blindness deepen? Romans 1 suggests a progression of blindness: one is born blind - not seeing the truth about God in its saving fulness - but seeing enough with our conscience and reason to leave us without excuse. We then descend into further darkness as we reject the light we have. Then God gives us over to the consequences of such a mind. Then the elect are granted to see His glory in the face of Jesus Christ. But the non-elect are left in their blindness.

It sounds as if you have redefined Total Depravity. Its not really from birth anymore? One is born less blind and becomes more blind later in life? This is a new direction for Calvinism, isn't it?

See my post titled "Calvinists, answer this one for me" in which I speak about children being more fit for heaven than adults.

I think it consistent with Scripture to conceive that out Lord spoke here in John 12 in figurative terms of a hardening in blindness on the majority of Jewish nation. The 'lest' then is idiomatic, not literal. It is to point up the extremity of their unbelief in the face of His great signs. I agree, this is harder to see than a literal undestanding of the text.

See now it appears to me you are having to do the stretching.

But so is reconciling Abraham's comment in Luke 16 that "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."with Jesus' comment in Matthew 11 for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

I don't have a problem with these comments at all. They simply mean that if one is so stubborn (self-hardened) that he won't believe the prophets then he won't believe you either. If anything I think this supports my position because if the author of this text was a Calvinists why would he point out the fact that someone rising from the dead couldn't convince him if the prophets didn't? Wouldn't he just say, "If God hasn't chosen him to believe, then even the dead won't convince him?" What does their not being persuaded by the prophets make a difference in your system? The prophets didn't persuade anyone according to you.

And as far as the Matt 11 passage I again see it cause you more problems. He refers to these people possibly believing and being saved had there been more signs and wonders performed there. I thought you believed that signs and wonders couldn't convince anyone to believe but only the "effectual calling." Why would Jesus imply that Sodom may have believed if there were more signs and wonders if indeed he didn't believe that signs and wonders had the ability to persuade the human will? Is Jesus lying here?

No, but because He is a holy God who is free to deepen the blindness of already spiritually blind sinners. Spiritual blindness is not a disability, it is a wicked condition, a state of enmity against God.

"Deepen the blindness." How do you do that? How is someone who you believe is born totally blind made more blind? If he this blindness is "deepened" then that means it wasn't total to begin with was it?

I agree with the purposes bit. It is the temporary hardening of the individuals that I deny.

But you believe that the nations hardening is only temporary? Explain.

A nation is made up of individuals, Ian. If hardened Israel is the non-elect of your system then why would there hardening be temporary?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Eric B:
OK, it's not completely accurate to say "gentiles in general", but the point was that the two groups Paul was discussing were physical Israel, and the truly saved. Israel was hardened, and the gentiles were opened up to, but of course, individual Israelites could still believe, and individual gentiles could still be lost. "Gentiles" is simply being used to contast "Israel". Many Israelites were trusting in their physical lineage to save them, but God did not raise the nation of Israel as a means of saving the individuals born into it. So they get compared to Pharaoh, who was "raised" for a specific reason in God's plan, and as far as salvation of them as a group is concerned, are "vessels of wrath". The group that saves, is the community of faith in Christ, which is of all "nations", not just Israel, but of course including believing Israelites. This group is the "vessels of mercy".

I just found this and I agree. In fact, its a better response than mine. Thanks Eric.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks for that info., Eric. I'm more acquainted with mainstream Calvinists. Yes, one finds pretty weird ideas everywhere, even from otherwise reliable folk at times. I remember being shocked by a sound brother suggesting there could be other intelligent life in the universe. How he could entertain that possibility is beyond me, but it must have seemed OK to him.

ACE is "mainstream". This is Horton, and others, such as RC Sproul, are involved in it as well. They are just more supralapsarian (or "high Calvinist") than most of the Calvinist Baptists here, and everyone thinks their brand is the true one, and thinks that other brands are offbeat.
The person was for the most part right, as no scripture says that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. Me and our old friend Bob recently debated this in "Other religions". God is sovereign, and can create us here, and anything else He wants in the unverse at the same time. Of course, no scripture hints at other life either, but then we should not be arguing against science, or other believers like that over something the Bible is completely silent on.

Imbued with a new heart. Their election occurred in eternity past.

For lack of better words at the time. Still, this has regeneration (and salvation) causing faith, rather than regeneration occuring after one receives Christ.

First, 'able' is not in mind in our use of responsible. 'Accountable' would be a synonym. I've used the illustration before but it may help to remind of my position; If I spend the rent money on alcohol and gambling, I am still responsible/accountable to the landlord for the rent, even though I can no longer pay. We spent our 'rent money' when Adam fell.

That is where the charge of "unfair" often comes up, because each individual did not actually "spend the rent money", but each is punished for it. This would be more comparable to someone spending the rent money and then leaving the house into their child's hands. The child is then "held accountable" by the landlord. He just wants his money, no matter who gives it to him. Whoever is living there. So yes, the child would be evicted, but still nobody would accuse him of "spending the rent money". Of course, he just inherited the debt, and that's the way some Calvinists interpret Romans 5 as essentially teaching: God just charged us with Adam's sin. (therefore, why not send the unborn to Hell? That's the way the people at ACE reasoned)A better way to view it is that the parent spends his rent money on partying, and the child inevitably picks up the habit, and then puts his own self in the same predicament. Not an exact illustration, but closer to the idea.[/QUOTE]

Second, We do not say God is unfair but sovereign. He is fair, it is Arminianism that says such action is unfair.

I wasn't saying that you [Calvinists] said it was unfair, but rather by "you people think it's unfair, but it's just "sovereignty", etc." I was mimicking the Calvinists talking to Arminians (i.e. "you people" who "think it's unfair" were the Arminians)

Is every man without exception drawn to Christ? Those who never hear the gospel and live and die without God and without hope?

We believe the natural by which they are held "without excuse" (including the conscience) is apart of that drawing.

That is a very helpful clarification, Eric. Where we differ is on how we view the offer of the gospel to the non-elect. I say it can be just as genuine as to the elect, because it would result in their salvation if they obeyed it. The reason they won't is their sinful heart, not God preventing someone wanting to repent. 'Not real' would mean it was bogus, a promise that would not be fulfilled if acted on. Using such a faulty defination of 'not real', an Open Theist could accuse Arminianism of a bogus offer, since Arminians believe (as Calvinists also) that God knows beforehand who will believe. If He knows they will refuse, any offer to them must be bogus.

Still, God makes this offer to them, knowing "if they act upon it, they would be saved", but withholds the ability, so they cannot act upon it, and the whole "offer" is moot. That is not a real "offer", but a script.
As for "knowing beforehand who would be saved", i don't argue about that, because it is way above our possible scope of knowledge. God works both in time, and outside of time, and trying to reconcile that is the real "tension", not "God leaves sinners helpless to respond to His offer, but still holds them 'responsible'"

Yes, we all have problems with the hard texts. I'm just suggesting that if we go through the Scripture and see which system throws up the most problems, I have found that Calvinism best gives a total picture.

But that total picture is that God does not want a lot of people saved, and this appears to me to contradict the whole picture of the good news of good will to all men.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, regarding 'vessels of mercy',
I might see your interpretation IF he hadn't said, "who have obtained it," as if he is specifically refering to past tense Jews who have already believed. Plus, the context of the entire passage lends itself to Paul describing a group of people who have been blinded and hardened but who still have hope of salvation. Your interpretation leaves those hardened without hope and that seems to fly in the face of everything Paul is seeking to communicate to his audience.

Yes, he refers to the present case for the elect, but that does not exclude the on-going nature of this division. The elect will obtain it. You say the elect are among the hardened, I say the elect are totally distinct from them and at any moment there are the elect and the reprobate. That does not mean a further group cannot embrace these two – the lost. All start out lost, some are elect , some are reprobate. That is true of all mankind, and some of the confusion in our discussion arises when we bring in the hardening of the Jewish nation.

Plus, Ian you have to consider the fact the the hardening IS temporary. Now, regardless of whether you think "temporary" means that it has already ended or not you still have to see that it is going to end. What is "temporary" about the hardened state of Calvinism's reprobates?

The hardening of the nation is temporary – until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Unless you make the fulness refer to some event within that generation that Paul spoke to, you cannot have it that the individuals are temporarily hardened. If no fullness occurred before AD 70, all that generation of hardened perished in their sins. So I believe that the temporary nature of the hardening refers to the nation – that the nation in general will continue in unbelief until that day when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. A remnant – the elect – will be present in all ages, but the great majority will be the hardened.

Do non-elect reprobates within the Calvinistic system have hope of leaving this hardened state? No. So what would be Paul's point in stating that the hardening will end? This still just doesn't fit with the context of what Paul is clearly teaching.

Paul is speaking of the nation. Explaining how the promises of God to Israel have not failed but that He has retained a remnant for Himself in every generation and eventually all Israel will be saved.

But you believe that the nations hardening is only temporary? Explain.
A nation is made up of individuals, Ian. If hardened Israel is the non-elect of your system then why would there hardening be temporary?

Simple: an illustration: Canada could be excluded from relations with the USA, no ambassadors, embassy, etc. That could continue for a thousand years, until the USA embraced it again. A temporary ban. For the individual Canadians, there was a division. A small group of pro-Americans in every generation were accorded every fellowship and privilege the USA had for its own citizens. The rest were under the ban. For those latter individuals, the ban was not temporary. For the nation it was.

Then you are not very well read. You must read your opponents views if you are going to disagree with them so adamently. I've pointed you to an Arminian scholar who expounds on this view. I'm still looking for your scholar.

That is true, I'm not very well read. But I have read your views; I read your quote from Adam Clarke; over these past two days I've visited a friend's bookstore and read what Moo, Dunn, Haldane, Morris, Calvin, Matthew Henry, and several others said about the 'vessels of mercy'. NONE of them, including Adam Clarke, hold to your view that it is the Gentiles. All agree with mine that it is the elect Jews and Gentiles. Maybe Clarke says something different elsewhere, but your quote has him on my side.

I had said,
NEVER have the Gentiles in general believed. Especially so in the early days of the church. Surely it is evident that Paul is speaking only of the believing Gentiles. The only point he made was that Gentiles had believed, not THE Gentiles, not the nations.

What? This is the very issue Paul was dealing with. Many Gentiles were coming to faith and the Jews, for the most part, were fighting him. That is the issue he addressing throughout the gospels. A Jew of that day might ask, "If what you preach is true then why are so many of those heathen Gentiles believing you and so few of us good Jews not?" Paul's response is Romans 9-11.

Again, this is not showing that the Gentiles are the vessels of mercy, only that believing Gentiles are included among them.

Listen carefully to how Paul actually describes the 'vessels of mercy': Rom.9:23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 'Us' - since when was Paul a Gentile?

I had said, 'Vessels of mercy' refers only to elect Jews and Gentiles. Conversely, "vessels prepared for destruction" refers to the non-elect Jews and Gentiles.

I disagree.
Who has God bore with great patience? The Jews.

He has "held out his hands to them all day long" Paul explains in the next chapter. He "longed to gather them under his wings but they were unwilling" (Matt. 23:37).

Who has become fit for destruction by continually rejecting God's messengers? The Jews.

God hasn't really sent messengers to the Gentiles until Paul and Peter. Paul says they are different from the Jews because they will listen. (Acts 28:28) Why? They haven't been hardened.


Who, at this time in history, is God displaying his mercy toward? The Gentiles.

Look up the word "mystery" in the NT and see if that word is not directly linked to the ingrafting of the Gentiles through faith. That is one of the key points of the entire NT is that God has brought mercy to the Gentiles. The remnant of Jews have hand picked for a noble purpose, not based upon any good within them and the Gentiles are being shown mercy by being offered entrance into the covenant by faith. "The rest" had been hardened for a time.

The Gentiles have not and will not be ingrafted. The elect from among them are and will. You err in making the reference to the Gentiles mean all Gentiles, as in the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews. Scripture makes it quite clear that God is talking about elect Gentiles. The offense to the Jews was that ANY Gentiles would be received.

More later, DV.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, regarding the Effectual Call and the use of means,

I was merely trying to show that certain human means are rendered USELESS because of the one supernatural means that you believe God has chosen to use. Understand?

Yes, I see what you are saying.

If the effectual call is truly the only means that works in bringing a person to saving faith then the gospel, prayer, signs, jealousy and other such human means that God has clearly implemented are really just for show. They accomplish nothing. They are rendered powerless.

The means are not useless. The effectual call is the SAME call as all who hear the gospel hear, but it is made effectual by God opening the elect one's heart to obey it. The call is the same gospel message everyone hears. It is one essential means God uses in saving people. Faith comes by hearing - but not all who hear have faith. The effectual call is the call given on the specific occasion God has determined to save that person. On that occasion, He gives them a 'heart of flesh' for their 'heart of stone'and they gladly receive the word. It is not enough that God gave them a new heart, He must also send them His gospel command.

He uses other means also, though these are not essential in every case. Prayer of others for them; providential warnings; providential blessings; nature; conscience; jealosy, etc. Particular means are used by Him in a chain that leads to repentance of the sinner. The one thing that must be at the end of that chain is the giving of the new heart, otherwise none of the means will be effective. The apostate of Heb.6 had all the means one could desire, yet perished.
To conclude, the effectual call is on the specific occasion when His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Before that they, like the rest, heard physically but not spiritually.

Plus, you have to deal with the issue that these human means are clearly explained and expounded upon whereas the effectual calling is not.

John's gospel abounds with the effectual call, eg. John 10:1 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

In fact, as we have seen throughout history some who hold to Calvinistic doctrine neglect these means because their logic tells them all the other means are useless despite the biblical mandates.

Yes, there are weirdos everywhere, who distort the truth. Does Open Theism disprove Arminianism? No, for while it holds to some of the key tenets of Arminianism, it plainly departs from the central thrust. Likewise with these non-preachers. Arminianism and Calivinism are not invalidated by those who go beyond their teachings.

I hope to deal with the believe/sheep issue and the 'lest'/TD one tomorrow. My apologies for delay: domestic affairs and work are squeezing me at the momemt. I know you understand. Let me just say again I appreciate the 'sharpening' you the others have provided. BaptistBoard is a real treasure house.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
All start out lost, some are elect , some are reprobate. That is true of all mankind, and some of the confusion in our discussion arises when we bring in the hardening of the Jewish nation.

So you assume. Ian, why would God need to harden reprobates? Why would you make people who were born already unable to see, hear, understand and believe the gospel more blind and deaf? That not only doesn't make any sense logically, its not biblical. Look back at the texts on hardening like Acts 28 and you will see the word "Lest" or "Otherwise" meaning had they not been hardened they "might have seen...heard...understood and been healed." In other words, this verse tells us what their natural ability was had they not been temporarily hardened.

The hardening of the nation is temporary – until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Unless you make the fulness refer to some event within that generation that Paul spoke to, you cannot have it that the individuals are temporarily hardened. If no fullness occurred before AD 70, all that generation of hardened perished in their sins. So I believe that the temporary nature of the hardening refers to the nation – that the nation in general will continue in unbelief until that day when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. A remnant – the elect – will be present in all ages, but the great majority will be the hardened.

Well, I have made the argument that the hardening ended with Christ's death when the veil ripped open, and the fulness of the Gentiles could be a reference to the full number God had set to accomplish his purpose to provoke the Jews to jealousy. (I agree that is debatable but then again its not essential to this discussion). Any way, even if you want to say the the hardening is still in effect today you must answer the question concerning the "day when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in." What will happen on that day when the hardening of those reprobates who are living ends? And why would Paul even say that the hardening would ever end if indeed hardening is synonmous with the non-elect reprobates. It just doesn't work.

Paul is speaking of the nation. Explaining how the promises of God to Israel have not failed but that He has retained a remnant for Himself in every generation and eventually all Israel will be saved.

Now, when you say "all Israel will be saved" do you mean all "elect" or do you mean all Jews?

This still doesn't answer the question of why the hardening of the nation is temporary. If hardening is representitive of the non-elect, why would it end?

Another question: If you interpret hardening nationally, why not election? Could I argue, as you have, that just as the Jewish nation has been hardened that he Gentile nation has been elected?

You may say, "No, because all Gentiles aren't saved." Well, neither are all Jews hardened. The point would be that as a whole, in general, the nation of Isreal is in unbelief (hardened) and the Gentiles are believing (elect). Elect meaning having been chosen as a nation to be given the opportunity to enter covenant with God just as the Jewish nation in the OT was considered "elect" though not all Jews followed God.

Simple: an illustration: Canada could be excluded from relations with the USA, no ambassadors, embassy, etc. That could continue for a thousand years, until the USA embraced it again. A temporary ban. For the individual Canadians, there was a division. A small group of pro-Americans in every generation were accorded every fellowship and privilege the USA had for its own citizens. The rest were under the ban. For those latter individuals, the ban was not temporary. For the nation it was.

There is a fundemental problem with this interpretation. Paul's words don't support it. Paul is not speaking of these hardened Jews as if they are reprobates. In chapter 10:1 he prays for their salvation...and don't tell me he is praying for the elect lost ones because it follows his statement about them stumbling over the rock of offense, which is a direct connection to hardened Jews. In chapter 10:21 he speaks of God's desire to save the obstinate and rebellious people, but they were unwilling. In chapter 11 his words of ones of hope that some MIGHT be saved. If your interpretation were what Paul really had in mind would he say, "the elect have obtained it...and I continue my ministry knowing God has reserved others who will obtain it, but through the means of jealousy this time." This makes the text pure non-sense. You have Paul hoping and praying for something that you say he believes God has already determined. And look again at Jealousy. That is directly related to those hardened. In fact, its the jealousy that is God's means to break their hardeness, so how can you say that those referred to as being hardened in this text can't be saved? Paul apparently thought they might.

And look at the word "might", that is consistant with a man who doesn't think its predetermined but that there is a variable at hand. What is that variable? You think its God's election of certain ones who are lost but not hardened. That can't be, because if they are elect as you presume why would Paul say "might" as if it might not? The variable has to be their will as it is being influence and provoked by the gospel and apparently the jealousy of the Gentiles salvation.

That is true, I'm not very well read. But I have read your views; I read your quote from Adam Clarke; over these past two days I've visited a friend's bookstore and read what Moo, Dunn, Haldane, Morris, Calvin, Matthew Henry, and several others said about the 'vessels of mercy'. NONE of them, including Adam Clarke, hold to your view that it is the Gentiles. All agree with mine that it is the elect Jews and Gentiles. Maybe Clarke says something different elsewhere, but your quote has him on my side.

You may need to go back and read Clarke again:

He wrote: Verse 23. And that he might make known] God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath: 1. To show his wrath, and to make his power known. And also, 2. That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy. Which he had afore prepared unto glory] The Jews were fitted for destruction long before; but the fittest time to destroy them was after he had prepared the believing Gentiles unto glory.

Again, this is not showing that the Gentiles are the vessels of mercy, only that believing Gentiles are included among them.

Now, I see your point. Yes, the mercy is only given to those who believe but he shows it, or offers it to all men. (Romans 11:32) That is the point I've been trying to make. He is showing mercy to the Gentiles as a nation by offering them entrance into covenant through faith, but the objects of that mercy are believers more specifically, but still Paul's clear intent here is to contrast them with the hardened Jews.

Listen carefully to how Paul actually describes the 'vessels of mercy': Rom.9:23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 'Us' - since when was Paul a Gentile?

You missed the point. Paul seems to be simply including the remnant of Isreal who were reserved by God to preach the message to the world in with these "objects of mercy." "Us" would be Jews who weren't hardened, the remnant.

The Gentiles have not and will not be ingrafted. The elect from among them are and will. You err in making the reference to the Gentiles mean all Gentiles, as in the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews. Scripture makes it quite clear that God is talking about elect Gentiles. The offense to the Jews was that ANY Gentiles would be received.

Where does it make that clear?

I've never meant all Gentiles. I mean the nation generally speaking. Like when Paul says later in the same verse "the Gentiles have obtained it" he doesn't mean every single one. He just means Gentiles in general. Neither of us think it all of one nation, we both agree that only some from each of the nations will be saved. The difference is who determines it. You believe God predetermines it and I believe God chose for man to be responsible which means he must be "response able". So I would agree, it is "select" Gentiles and "select" Jews...selected based upon their faith. I think the text makes it clear that faith is that deciding criteria.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:

The means are not useless. The effectual call is the SAME call as all who hear the gospel hear, but it is made effectual by God opening the elect one's heart to obey it. The call is the same gospel message everyone hears. It is one essential means God uses in saving people. Faith comes by hearing - but not all who hear have faith. The effectual call is the call given on the specific occasion God has determined to save that person. On that occasion, He gives them a 'heart of flesh' for their 'heart of stone'and they gladly receive the word. It is not enough that God gave them a new heart, He must also send them His gospel command.

He uses other means also, though these are not essential in every case. Prayer of others for them; providential warnings; providential blessings; nature; conscience; jealosy, etc. Particular means are used by Him in a chain that leads to repentance of the sinner. The one thing that must be at the end of that chain is the giving of the new heart, otherwise none of the means will be effective. The apostate of Heb.6 had all the means one could desire, yet perished.
To conclude, the effectual call is on the specific occasion when His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Before that they, like the rest, heard physically but not spiritually.

I can accept your argument concerning the gospel being needed. But this doesn't answer the original question that started this. That was, "What is the use of Jealousy?"

They are given a new heart. Done.

They hear the gospel message and believe. Ok.

Where does jealousy provoking them fit into that?

More later, got to go.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, regarding the believe/sheep issue of John 6,

I see your point, but you have ignored mine. Again, look back over my post about the ingrafted branch and I explain how the circle is broken.

I agree, they can't believe because they are not his sheep. BUT what does that mean? Does that mean they can never become his sheep? No, more so than becoming grafted back in to the vine which they clearly can do according to Paul.

Again, your argument is circular: you suggest that one can become a sheep by believing, but one cannot believe if one is not a sheep.

Let me take it from a different angle. Sheep means chosen to believe, right?

Right.

Jesus says, "You can't believe because you are not my Sheep." In other words, "You can't believe because you have not been chosen to believe."

I agree with that. Only the remnant of the Jewish nation had been chosen to believe while Christ was on earth. It had not been granted to any one else at that point in human history. Why? If they all believed who would have killed him? He had a purpose to accomplish through there unbelief.

Keeping that in mind. Once that purpose was accomplished and God sent his messengers to preach to all the world, the veil has been split, and the way to salvation made open to all mankind, who can become his sheep? Everyone who believes.

Back to your dilemma: you can’t believe if you are not His sheep.

But, I can hear you potesting, "NO, that have to be sheep before they can believe." Fine. Sheep are those who have been chosen to believe. After the cross, God chose to draw all men to himself. He desires all to believe; therefore all can become sheep in his fold.
In short, Jesus' audience could not believe because they had not been granted the ability to believe. That in no way proves that they didn't have that ability later.

Now we get to the crux of your argument. So Jesus is saying, ‘You can't believe because you are not my Sheep, but a year or so from now you will be able to believe even though you are not my sheep.’

That makes any understanding of Scripture a nonsense. If such a hermeneutic were valid, then we could change any of the truths stated here: ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’ can be amended with ‘but a year or so from now you will be able to come even if not drawn’; ‘unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ amended with ‘but a year or so from now you will be able to see the kingdom of God without being born again’.


John’s gospel is a prime source of the doctrines of grace, commonly called Calvinism:
The doctrine of TOTAL DEPRAVITY: e.g. 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; 6:65 And 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."
LIMITED ATONEMENT: e.g. 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
IRRESTIBLE GRACE: e.g. 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out; 10:2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers… 16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice… 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.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: e.g. 6:37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out; 39This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day; 10: 28And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.

It would certainly be helpful to Arminianism to restrict the meaning of these texts to a few years and a few people. But the Scripture cries out that these precious words apply to all times and people: it is a history of the elect and the reprobate, the sheep and the goats. If we remove the Gospel texts from the profile of the true Christian on the basis that they refer only to the immediate hearers, we have lost much of our understanding of what a Christian is.

After the cross, God chose to draw all men to himself. He desires all to believe; therefore all can become sheep in his fold.

Has He really drawn all men without exception to Himself? No, 'all' cannot mean that. It can mean some of both Jews and Gentiles, all as opposed to Jews only; or it can mean all the elect without exception, as in All that the Father gives Me will come to Me of 6:37.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Now we get to the crux of your argument. So Jesus is saying, ‘You can't believe because you are not my Sheep, but a year or so from now you will be able to believe even though you are not my sheep.’

That makes any understanding of Scripture a nonsense. If such a hermeneutic were valid, then we could change any of the truths stated here: ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’ can be amended with ‘but a year or so from now you will be able to come even if not drawn’; ‘unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ amended with ‘but a year or so from now you will be able to see the kingdom of God without being born again’.

You are not being fair to my argument and I think you know it. I wasn't appling a "hermentic" in which you pull other verses from their context and take them to extreme ends as you have. I could do the same to many of your previous arguments but that is not going to accomplish much of anything.

I'm not necessarily saying that there is a time frame on when they might believe and become sheep. I'm trying to explain that the only ones chosen to believe AT THAT TIME were the remnant and they were being illustrated by Christ as "sheep." No one else was being granted the opportunity to be his sheep at that time. As I have stated, you become a "sheep" by believing just as you become an ingrafted branch. That cannot happen AT THIS TIME for those who haven't been uniquely chosen. So, while Christ is speaking there is only one flock of sheep, the firstfruits, the remnant chosen to be the "first to hope in Christ." These are the ones God set apart from Israel to take the message to the world. No one else could believe because they were not of this flock of sheep. They were not of the firstfruits. Does that disqualify them from ever becoming a part of the second flock that must be brought in? No. If they leave their unbelief they can be ingrafted back into the vine and they can be sheep lead back into the pen. How do we know? Read Romans 11. The analogies of the ingrafted branches and the sheep are parallel and provide a perfect tool for helping us understand them both. That is hermenutics, using scripture to interpret scripture.

It would certainly be helpful to Arminianism to restrict the meaning of these texts to a few years and a few people.

Believe me I'm not trying to do something because it "helps" prove Arminianism. I am honestly trying to understand the intent of the author, period.

But the Scripture cries out that these precious words apply to all times and people: it is a history of the elect and the reprobate, the sheep and the goats. If we remove the Gospel texts from the profile of the true Christian on the basis that they refer only to the immediate hearers, we have lost much of our understanding of what a Christian is.

I agree that these words can apply to us today, but just not with your application. My application still teaches us many very important things about humanity. For example, we learn not to let our hearts grow hardened as the Jews did. We learn that the apostles had real authority because they were given to Christ by the Father and effectually called to their divine tasks, so we should heed their teachings. And there is much more I could say, but you get the point. This is all still very applicable to us, its just not what you think it says.

Think about it Ian. This is quite a unique time in human history. Christ is in the flesh on earth with the mission to train 12 Jewish men given to him by the Father while keeping the message from the rest of the Jews so they don't believe before their time. All before his appointment to redeem the world on the cross. The nation of Israel was being hardened by God otherwise they might have believed (Acts 28, Mark 4, Matt 13). So there are definately people who have been chosen for a purpose and others who have not. That can seem to support a Calvinistic doctrine of soteriology, I admit that. I believed it for many years myself. BUT its quite clear if you read the text with these issues in mind that the INTENT of the author was never to support such teachings.

Has He really drawn all men without exception to Himself? No, 'all' cannot mean that. It can mean some of both Jews and Gentiles, all as opposed to Jews only; or it can mean all the elect without exception, as in All that the Father gives Me will come to Me of 6:37.

I'll admit, "all" could mean "people of all nations." But if you look at other texts such as Rev. 22:17 and others there is a universal calling or drawing of God to all men. Even Calvinists affirm the universal call of the gospel, don't you?