God, That's not fair!

[Skandelon]

I thought of this other illustration that I thought might help with this issue.

Let's say there was a General in the Army who sends his son a Drill sergant to Ft. Hood to train 12 men for battle and send them off. Now lets also say that for whatever reason the mission was secret and none of the other soilders were to be told about the mission because it was granted for them to go yet, but they may go later if they so choose, but only when the original 12 men lead them there. So, the Sergant used code words that only the 12 men could understand and told them to keep what they knew quite. At a time or two the Sergant writes letters to thank his father for giving him these men to train and the 12 write letters telling about their training and time together.

Now, someone comes along years later and has some of the records and letters from the time that all this was going on. They come across phrases in some of these letters like, "The general has given them to his son."
"No one can be trained by the son unless they have been given to the son by the General."
"They can't go into battle because it hasn't been granted to you." etc.

Some of them conclude that only the 12 went into battle and the rest never did. But others point out other parts of the letters that say things like:

"The Sergant spoke in code so the other soilders wouldn't know about the mission until it was the right time."
"Once the purpose of the General has been accomplished some of the others might go into battle." "Later many of the others who the mission was hidden from in the beginning understood and chose to also go into battle."

Now, I know this is a rough illustration but do you see the point? You have to know the context of what is happening to understand random phrases.

 

[Ian Major]

Skan and Eric

My apologies for the longer than expected delay in reply to remainder of your points. I've just finished relocating Mum to a residential home and the negotiations, consultations, and disposal of furniture, etc. was much more than I anticipated.

It did give me time to mull over your excellent objection to Total Depravity, Skan, so it has been spiritually profitable too.

The objection is that 'lest' or 'otherwise' in John 12:40 ("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.")
means that these folk could have savingly believed had not God hardened their hearts, and consequently Total Depravity cannot be true.

I've never encountered this objection before and in the past few weeks I've been reading many commentators to see if they dealt with it. None so far. Even the works dedicated to the defence of Calvinism seem not to have encountered it. I then asked some friends had they thought about this and most said No.

My initial response to you (post 3125) - I'll paste it here for convenience: 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.

To that I now add:
first, an article from a friend who had given it some thought:
I believe that this is a very good question from the Arminian perspective, and one that deserves serious consideration, and a reasonable response. If all of the unregenerate are already dead in trespasses and sins, blind and deaf to any perception of the truth of God’s revelation, and utterly incapable of responding via faith (as the doctrine known as “total depravity” teaches), then they (the Arminians) do well to wonder at the significance of what we find in this and other related passages.

If the "matter of saving faith" is in view, it is in the intentional prevention of this by God.

I have recently studied the following related passage:
Romans 11:7-10, 25 -
“7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.” “25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”

Compare also: Dt. 29:4; Ps. 69:22-23; Is. 6:9-10; Mt. 13:14; Mk. 4:11-12; Lk. 8:10; Jn. 12:40; Ac. 28:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:14-15

[Note: A. T. Robertson speaks of this as “a terrible imprecation” (_Word Pictures_).]

There are several possible responses to the issues raised by such passages that I can imagine:

1. On the part of semi-Pelagians such as Arminians who deny the doctrine of total depravity there could be several variants, for example –

1) They must be capable of seeing, hearing, and believing apart from this judgmental curse of God. Those coming at such passages from this doctrinal slant would see this as implicitly taught in these passages. They would no doubt insist that the judgment mentioned is meaningless if they were already blind, deaf, and incapable of faith, as taught in Reformed doctrine. They would see this as directly contradicting that doctrine, and would insist that those holding to total depravity have no reasonable explanation for the reality of this imprecation and its fulfillment.

2) Another variant common to the Wesleyan brand of semi-Pelagianism would teach that the ability to see, hear and believe, while not inherent in all the unregenerate, nevertheless comes to them coordinate with the ministry of the Gospel via the Spirit. Their take on these passages is that God deprives some of this normal spiritual blessing due to their prior failures to respond in faith.

2. For those who align themselves within the Reformed tradition as believing the doctrine of the total depravity and utter inability of the unregenerate -

1) Some may explain these passages as teaching that the blindness/deafness indicated there lies in the silencing of the prophets and teachers, and in the “dark” communications of the Word as in parables. This would then be focused on something quite external to the persons seen as objects of the imprecation.

2) While I see some justification for this viewpoint, my understanding of these passages thus far would, however, lead me to conclude that much more is intended, and indeed, something more focused on an internal level. I would characterize what these imprecations constitute as “the blinding of the blind” and “the deafening of the deaf”. For those familiar with Bunyan’s and Perkin’s charts depicting God’s sovereign dealings with mankind in election and reprobation this should be familiar ground. The fact of the matter is that the doctrine of total depravity, rightly understood, has never taught that the reprobate are necessarily as “bad” as they could be, or in as bad a condition as they could be. In other words, there is something worse than total depravity! There is something worse than mere reprobation! It is “progress” in depravity, or rather declension in reprobation (cp. Rom. 1:18ff.). . Just as there is progress in holiness for the elect, so there is declension in sin for the reprobate (cp. Mt. 12:45; Lk. 11:26).

What many seem incapable of comprehending is that God can and does increase the sinfulness of the reprobate merely by withholding His restraining grace in some measure, and by hindering the reprobate from experiencing the normal guilty response to the Spirit’s convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (cp. 2 Th. 2). Scripture seems to indicate that there is benefit in exposure to the Word of God (Heb. 3-4), and the people of God (1 Cor. 7:14), whereby the normal sinful behavior of the unregenerate may be lessened temporarily through these positive “influences”.

What God does in judgment (Rom. 1, 2 Th. 2, etc.) is to increase the declension of the reprobate away from Him and His truth and towards the Liar and his lies. What God appears to be doing to Israel in the passages in question is something worse than the natural blindness and deafness of the unregenerate. It is an additional blindness and deafness whereby they not only fail to see, hear and believe His Gospel, but negatively are incited to much greater opposition to it and more passionate adherence to error. The “veil” mentioned in 2 Cor. 3:14-15 is something beyond the ordinary experience of the rest of the unregenerate portion of mankind. There is something worse than blindness and deafness, and that is when God, in judgment, blinds the blind, and deafens the deaf. When God curses those under the curse, and judges those under the judgment, He apparently does more than merely withhold His goodness which would normally provoke at least movement towards repentance (Rom. 2:1-9). He adds His severity which has the opposite effect.

The bottom line here is that there is a blindness darker than that of the “run of the mill” unregenerate person, and a deafness deafer than that experienced by those reprobates not under Israel’s curse. There is a working out of depravity within the depraved, and an increasing decline of the reprobate in sinful rebellion against God. There is an aggravation coordinate with the light God has shed on an individual or a group, and wherein their judgment reflects their responsibility towards God for what He has exposed them to. There is a sense in which “the totality of depravity” has not been fully realized even within those who begin by birth as “totally depraved”. The manifestation of depravity can be accelerated by the judgment of God. I believe that is precisely what we see concerning Israel in these passages.

Secondly, I add my own agreement with this friend's view - that it is a deepening of the Jews' darkness that is in view. So much should have been expected of this favoured nation, but their rebellion is met with God's judicial hardening, so that it is only a remnant that believes and the rest are marked by unusual hostility and unresponsiveness to the gospel. That has characterised the Jewish nation down to this day. They are not like the rest of mankind who are merely blind with Total Depravity - the majority of the Jews have that blindness plus the special hardening God has consigned them to, until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.

God has cut them of from the means He uses to convert man; the hearing and understanding of the Word. The 'lest' is a way of saying that had He treated them like He does the Gentiles, then they would have had the same response as the Gentiles do. But He has shut the majority of the Jews up to disobedience, until His appointed time. He is perfectly just in doing so, just as He had shut up the Gentiles previously. All are guilty and deserve only wrath. But He has mercy on some, whom He will.

I'll respond to other issues raised in your and Eric's last posts later, DV.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Ian, let me first say, Thank you. You are the first Calvinist in two and half years of asking this question who has even honestly attempted to provide an answer. God bless your honesty and objectiveness in dealing with God's Word! I really don't care if we disagree in the end because I respect you. I also hope you Mum is doing well with all the changes, my prayers are with your family.

With that said I still have some honest points of contention...

Originally posted by Ian Major:
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.

How do you mean "idiomatic?" I know what the word means, it refers to a mode of expression peculiar to a language. So I assume you mean the phrase "lest they believe" is idiomatic to the Greek language in some way. Do you have any kind of support for this claim from a Greek scholar who could give examples of how this particular phrase was used as an idiomatic expression among the Greeks of that day? And since the phrase is translated from Hebrew originally as it was a quote from the prophets would also contend that it is idiomatic in the Hebrew language as well? I really don't see how that could be. Aren't idiomatic phrases from one language translated into what the really mean in another?

For example. Here is some English idiomatic phrases:
Ian is down in the dumps. Or yesterday I met with my class and I had to break the ice.

Now, if I were an interpretor who was translating these phrases into let's say Spanish would I do it literally? Of course not. They would think you were at the city dump and that I broke ice cubes.

In the same way, why would the Greek speaking authors of the NT take a Hebrew idiom and translate it literally to mean something it doesn't really mean? Secondly, why would modern Greek scholar take what you consider to be a Greek idiom and translate it literally into English so that we don't have it real meaning? Do you see the problem with your logic?

BTW, this verse is translated many time throughout the NT. (Act 28, Matt. 13, Mark 4, Luke 8 etc) It seems that one of those NT authors would have reconized this phrase as being idiomatic and translated into its intended meaning. Don't you think?

I believe that this is a very good question from the Arminian perspective, and one that deserves serious consideration, and a reasonable response. If all of the unregenerate are already dead in trespasses and sins, blind and deaf to any perception of the truth of God’s revelation, and utterly incapable of responding via faith (as the doctrine known as “total depravity” teaches), then they (the Arminians) do well to wonder at the significance of what we find in this and other related passages.

This guy has completely won over my respect because he hasn't allowed his own doctrinal perspectives blind him from difficulties in his own system to the point that he ignore them or plays them off as being unrelated to the issues. There are some, who will remain nameless, that don't have that kind of doctrinal integrity and I just want to say THANK YOU for dealing with this argument and me honestly.

While I see some justification for this viewpoint, my understanding of these passages thus far would, however, lead me to conclude that much more is intended, and indeed, something more focused on an internal level. I would characterize what these imprecations constitute as “the blinding of the blind” and “the deafening of the deaf”. For those familiar with Bunyan’s and Perkin’s charts depicting God’s sovereign dealings with mankind in election and reprobation this should be familiar ground. The fact of the matter is that the doctrine of total depravity, rightly understood, has never taught that the reprobate are necessarily as “bad” as they could be, or in as bad a condition as they could be. In other words, there is something worse than total depravity! There is something worse than mere reprobation! It is “progress” in depravity, or rather declension in reprobation (cp. Rom. 1:18ff.). . Just as there is progress in holiness for the elect, so there is declension in sin for the reprobate (cp. Mt. 12:45; Lk. 11:26).

Ok, but this does seem to be a departure from historical teaching of Total Depravity. I know TD has never meant they are as bad as that could be but to say that they are less blind, less deaf, or more able to understand before hardening? That is quite a departure isn't it? And it puts quite a stress on that text especially in light of the fact that it reveals their ability had the hardening not been imposed with the "otherwise/lest" phrase.

What many seem incapable of comprehending is that God can and does increase the sinfulness of the reprobate merely by withholding His restraining grace in some measure, and by hindering the reprobate from experiencing the normal guilty response to the Spirit’s convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (cp. 2 Th. 2). Scripture seems to indicate that there is benefit in exposure to the Word of God (Heb. 3-4), and the people of God (1 Cor. 7:14), whereby the normal sinful behavior of the unregenerate may be lessened temporarily through these positive “influences”.

Well that would seem to fly in the face of the Calvinistic interpretation of "dead" wouldn't it? How would a "dead" man be responsive to the exposure of the Word within your system? That doesn't seem consistant to me.

It is an additional blindness and deafness whereby they not only fail to see, hear and believe His Gospel, but negatively are incited to much greater opposition to it and more passionate adherence to error. The “veil” mentioned in 2 Cor. 3:14-15 is something beyond the ordinary experience of the rest of the unregenerate portion of mankind.

But the text doesn't say the hardening was to deepen their depravity by making them blinder, deafer etc. and then incite them to greater opposition. That must be pressumed upon the text while completely ignoring the so-called "idiomatic" phrase that follows. Why would you want to practice such textual gymnatics if you don't have to? I could understand working so hard to harmonize this passage with others that really support TD but there aren't any others. The verse you have like Romans 8 and I Cor. 2:14 are questionable at best and don't even mention man's ability to respond in faith to the gospel. I just can't think of any good reason to impose this type of explaination unless you are being driven to prop up an unbiblical system. Maybe instead of defending Calvinism and making the scripture bend to fit, try defending the scripture and bend your Calvinism to fit. Just a suggestion.

God has cut them of from the means He uses to convert man; the hearing and understanding of the Word.

But why? So they won't see, hear and understand otherwise they might. That is the only logical answer and it's even the answer the text gives. Why give another?

The 'lest' is a way of saying that had He treated them like He does the Gentiles, then they would have had the same response as the Gentiles do.

Which was to believe, right? That is my point. Had he not hardened them, they might have believed.

But He has shut the majority of the Jews up to disobedience, until His appointed time. He is perfectly just in doing so, just as He had shut up the Gentiles previously. All are guilty and deserve only wrath. But He has mercy on some, whom He will.

Where does it say his hardened the Jews previously? I know he withheld himself from them to some extent, but I don't think he ever hardened them in this manner. I agree that all deserve only wrath but I have to take issue with only having mercy on some. Romans 11:32 says that all men are shown mercy. And you might try to contend that he means "all kinds of men" or "men from all the world" but its the same men who were bound over to disobedience who are shown mercy.

Blessings.

 

[Eric B]

There is something worse than mere reprobation! It is “progress” in depravity, or rather declension in reprobation (cp. Rom. 1:18ff.). . Just as there is progress in holiness for the elect, so there is declension in sin for the reprobate (cp. Mt. 12:45; Lk. 11:26).

What many seem incapable of comprehending is that God can and does increase the sinfulness of the reprobate merely by withholding His restraining grace in some measure, and by hindering the reprobate from experiencing the normal guilty response to the Spirit’s convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (cp. 2 Th. 2). Scripture seems to indicate that there is benefit in exposure to the Word of God (Heb. 3-4), and the people of God (1 Cor. 7:14), whereby the normal sinful behavior of the unregenerate may be lessened temporarily through these positive “influences”.

What God does in judgment (Rom. 1, 2 Th. 2, etc.) is to increase the declension of the reprobate away from Him and His truth and towards the Liar and his lies. What God appears to be doing to Israel in the passages in question is something worse than the natural blindness and deafness of the unregenerate. It is an additional blindness and deafness whereby they not only fail to see, hear and believe His Gospel, but negatively are incited to much greater opposition to it and more passionate adherence to error. The “veil” mentioned in 2 Cor. 3:14-15 is something beyond the ordinary experience of the rest of the unregenerate portion of mankind. There is something worse than blindness and deafness, and that is when God, in judgment, blinds the blind, and deafens the deaf. When God curses those under the curse, and judges those under the judgment, He apparently does more than merely withhold His goodness which would normally provoke at least movement towards repentance (Rom. 2:1-9). He adds His severity which has the opposite effect.

The bottom line here is that there is a blindness darker than that of the “run of the mill” unregenerate person, and a deafness deafer than that experienced by those reprobates not under Israel’s curse. There is a working out of depravity within the depraved, and an increasing decline of the reprobate in sinful rebellion against God. There is an aggravation coordinate with the light God has shed on an individual or a group, and wherein their judgment reflects their responsibility towards God for what He has exposed them to.

This still would be true within the framework of the earlier dismissed

Another variant common to the Wesleyan brand of semi-Pelagianism would teach that the ability to see, hear and believe, while not inherent in all the unregenerate, nevertheless comes to them coordinate with the ministry of the Gospel via the Spirit. Their take on these passages is that God deprives some of this normal spiritual blessing due to their prior failures to respond in faith .

Both agree on something that can be called "reprobation". The difference is that the Reformed view assumes reprobation to be unconditional. But in other passages such as Romans 1) we see that it is in fact a result of rejecting previous revelation.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said,
How do you mean "idiomatic?" I know what the word means, it refers to a mode of expression peculiar to a language. So I assume you mean the phrase "lest they believe" is idiomatic to the Greek language in some way. Do you have any kind of support for this claim from a Greek scholar who could give examples of how this particular phrase was used as an idiomatic expression among the Greeks of that day? And since the phrase is translated from Hebrew originally as it was a quote from the prophets would also contend that it is idiomatic in the Hebrew language as well? I really don't see how that could be. Aren't idiomatic phrases from one language translated into what the really mean in another?

Yes, it is my poor grasp of English grammar that has led to my using ‘idiomatic’. Your definition is accurate.
Let me try to phrase it better: The Spirit was revealing the condition and fate of these Jews and in doing so expressed only the particulars that were relevant to His purposes. He reveals their hardening, and what they are hardened against, but leaves out other aspects of the whole truth about the matter. It is this telling of only the relevant parts of a story that I need the grammatical term for. We would not consider it grammatically incorrect to make such a statement. It is a way of communicating a truth. It is not exhaustive, but it adequately sets forth the central truth to be revealed.
The truth here set forth is that these Jews were to be hardened, blinded, deafened to God’s word to the end that they would perish in their sins. The truth not discussed is that of their already hard, blind, deaf condition due to Total Depravity.

So then the meaning of the prophecy was not that folk who were perfectly able to repent are barred from it by God; but rather that hard-hearted sinners, already enslaved by their sins, unable to change their behaviour, with minds at enmity with God, were to be wholly given over to that condition, with repentance being ruled out for them. They were to perish in their sins. Other sinners, some from among them and some from among the Gentiles, were to be granted repentance – but not them.


Ok, but this does seem to be a departure from historical teaching of Total Depravity. I know TD has never meant they are as bad as that could be but to say that they are less blind, less deaf, or more able to understand before hardening? That is quite a departure isn't it? And it puts quite a stress on that text especially in light of the fact that it reveals their ability had the hardening not been imposed with the "otherwise/lest" phrase.

I’m not sure it is a departure. Anything I’ve read on Calvinism accepts increase of blindness in the sense I’ve expressed. As to their ability implied by ‘otherwise/lest’, the point I’m making is that 'otherwise/lest' was not in immediate relationship to repentance but through the means of opportunity granted by God. He was withdrawing that opportunity.


How would a "dead" man be responsive to the exposure of the Word within your system? That doesn't seem consistant to me.

The ‘dead’ can respond to the Word in every respect except savingly. They can hate the message and the messenger and the One preached; they can be smitten with guilt/fear and seek to be reconciled to this One, but only on their own terms. The parable of the soils reveals the reaction of ‘dead’ sinners. It is only good soil that brings forth fruit. To speak plainly, it is only when those who are dead in trespasses and sins are made alive that they bear fruit to God.

But the text doesn't say the hardening was to deepen their depravity by making them blinder, deafer etc. and then incite them to greater opposition. That must be pressumed upon the text while completely ignoring the so-called "idiomatic" phrase that follows. Why would you want to practice such textual gymnatics if you don't have to?

The text does say that the hardening was to make certain the nation’s destruction, i.e. No repentance was to be granted them. It was to be spoken to an already rebellious nation, hard-hearted and blind. To me that entails a clear increase in blindness and rebellion. I don’t see any gymnastics involved.

I could understand working so hard to harmonize this passage with others that really support TD but there aren't any others. The verse you have like Romans 8 and I Cor. 2:14 are questionable at best and don't even mention man's ability to respond in faith to the gospel. I just can't think of any good reason to impose this type of explaination unless you are being driven to prop up an unbiblical system. Maybe instead of defending Calvinism and making the scripture bend to fit, try defending the scripture and bend your Calvinism to fit. Just a suggestion.

Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
You may object that this applies to the regenerate man also, that ‘carnal’ Christians are in view, and they certainly are not Totally Depraved. But the case for T.D. is established by these verses, for that carnal mind that besets the Christian is now only an unwelcome lodger with whom we war daily, but it is the only occupier in the case of the unsaved. We as Christians cannot reconcile it to God, much less the lost, who are totally controlled by it. It is their mind, their nature; they have no other, and they CANNOT know God or be subject to His law.

To these verses let me add:
Gen.8: 21And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
Ps.51: 5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Ps.58: 3The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Jer.13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.
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.
John 8: 43Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Rom.6: 20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Eph.2: 1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

Dead in sins, slaves to sin, needing our hearts opened: a good description of T.D.


I had said, ‘God has cut them of from the means He uses to convert man; the hearing and understanding of the Word.’
But why? So they won't see, hear and understand otherwise they might. That is the only logical answer and it's even the answer the text gives. Why give another?

It is not another; it is the same reason but mediated by the use of means. God removes them from the opportunity of repentance.

I further said, ‘The 'lest' is a way of saying that had He treated them like He does the Gentiles, then they would have had the same response as the Gentiles do.’
Which was to believe, right? That is my point. Had he not hardened them, they might have believed.

Hmm, I see how I confused you. Let me try again; The Gentiles only have T.D. to be removed by God. He removes that from those whom He has chosen among them. He could have treated the Jewish nation likewise. But for their wickedness in rebelling against so much light, He determines that the majority of them shall not have this mercy that their privileged position would suggest. It was expected that ALL of the nation would be saved, for they were the people of the Promise. It was expected that ALL would have had their naturally hard hearts changed, in accordance with Ezek.36. But God removed even the degree of mercy He shows to the Gentiles.

I had said, ‘But He has shut the majority of the Jews up to disobedience, until His appointed time. He is perfectly just in doing so, just as He had shut up the Gentiles previously. All are guilty and deserve only wrath. But He has mercy on some, whom He will.’
Where does it say his hardened the Jews previously? I know he withheld himself from them to some extent, but I don't think he ever hardened them in this manner. Where does it say his hardened the Jews previou

I assume you mean Gentiles? God had left them, ‘ without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. Eph.2:12. God had left the Gentiles to perish in their sins, while extending mercy to Israel. Now He does so to Israel, while extending mercy to the Gentiles.

I agree that all deserve only wrath but I have to take issue with only having mercy on some. Romans 11:32 says that all men are shown mercy. And you might try to contend that he means "all kinds of men" or "men from all the world" but its the same men who were bound over to disobedience who are shown mercy.

That can only be true if you define mercy as the possibility of repentance. If we take mercy to mean repentance unto life, then you must accept that such is not given to all without exception.

Thanks for your good wishes for Mum.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said,
Both agree on something that can be called "reprobation". The difference is that the Reformed view assumes reprobation to be unconditional. But in other passages such as Romans 1) we see that it is in fact a result of rejecting previous revelation.

It depends on how far back one goes in the purposes of God. Reprobation is usually conceived of by Calvinists as God's response to fallen man's wickedness. Some do place His reprobation in a pre-fall setting, but I've not encountered much of that. But I'm not that well-read.

'Unconditional' means for me the same as in the case of Election - that God chose from among the mass of SINNERS a people for Himself.

Then we also must consider that reprobation, as election, is worked out in time. God uses means to establish His people in righteousness; likewise He uses means to establish the reprobate in their wickedness. He gives them over to their will; He darkens even the natural light they have, etc.

In Him

Ian

 

[Eric B]

Still, that last statement seems to lead to the very supralapsarianism your first sentence disclaimed. The whole problem in this debate is the difference between God in eternity, and how He works thiongs in time. Calvinists want to focus on what He has decreed in eternity, but many do not like the resulting supralapsarianism, and then try to focus on the people's own sin in time making them "deserve" that judgment. But if God simply used time as a means to "establish" his people in righteousness, AND establishe the reprobates in wickedness, then ultimately, the reprobates are not really being condemned for their own sin, but rather their sin was merely part of a script (as I call it) that God wrote (in eternity; before the Fall), with the main objective being their condemnation (for some supposedly unrevealed other, higher purpose). This is supralapsarianism pure and simple.

You also said:
"That can only be true if you define mercy as the possibility of repentance. If we take mercy to mean repentance unto life, then you must accept that such is not given to all without exception". These definitions of mercy are a big part of the difference between the two views. I would say "offering of mercy" as possibility of repentance, if they choose to accept it. Actual repentance is the fulfillment of that mercy to those who accept it. The key verse is "god has concluded all in sin, so He may have mercy on ALL"(Romans 11:31-2). This supports the former view.

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said,
Still, that last statement seems to lead to the very supralapsarianism your first sentence disclaimed. The whole problem in this debate is the difference between God in eternity, and how He works thiongs in time. Calvinists want to focus on what He has decreed in eternity, but many do not like the resulting supralapsarianism, and then try to focus on the people's own sin in time making them "deserve" that judgment. But if God simply used time as a means to "establish" his people in righteousness, AND establishe the reprobates in wickedness, then ultimately, the reprobates are not really being condemned for their own sin, but rather their sin was merely part of a script (as I call it) that God wrote (in eternity; before the Fall), with the main objective being their condemnation (for some supposedly unrevealed other, higher purpose). This is supralapsarianism pure and simple.

I don't follow your logic. If God made them sin, that would hold water, but giving them over to their own sinful desires does not.

But let me ask you, is your system any 'fairer' in man's eyes? Do you not have God knowingly creating a universe that He knew would fall, and with that Fall millions of men and women would spend eternity in hell? Is that any better than either infra or supra lapsarianism?

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Yes, it is my poor grasp of English grammar that has led to my using ‘idiomatic’. Your definition is accurate. Let me try to phrase it better: The Spirit was revealing the condition and fate of these Jews and in doing so expressed only the particulars that were relevant to His purposes. He reveals their hardening, and what they are hardened against, but leaves out other aspects of the whole truth about the matter. It is this telling of only the relevant parts of a story that I need the grammatical term for. We would not consider it grammatically incorrect to make such a statement. It is a way of communicating a truth. It is not exhaustive, but it adequately sets forth the central truth to be revealed.

The grammatical term you are look for is called "stretching" the scripture to make it fit your doctrine.

I'm not trying to be mean, I just don't see how you could feel good about doing what you just did to God's Word.

The truth here set forth is that these Jews were to be hardened, blinded, deafened to God’s word to the end that they would perish in their sins. The truth not discussed is that of their already hard, blind, deaf condition due to Total Depravity.

No it doesn't discuss their previous condition. I agree with that, but it does tell us the abilities they would have possessed in their previous condition and their ability would have been to believe. You still haven't proven the case that those who are hardened will certainly perish in their sins. Paul makes it quite clear that hardened Jews may be provoked to envy and be saved. (Romans 11:14)

So then the meaning of the prophecy was not that folk who were perfectly able to repent are barred from it by God; but rather that hard-hearted sinners, already enslaved by their sins, unable to change their behaviour, with minds at enmity with God, were to be wholly given over to that condition, with repentance being ruled out for them. They were to perish in their sins. Other sinners, some from among them and some from among the Gentiles, were to be granted repentance – but not them.

I will add this one point. I do believe the Jews were rebellious sinners before they were judicially hardened. You might say they were self hardened (as I defined in an earlier post). But according to this passage that would not have made them incapable of believing as did the judicial hardening. This along with the fact that no scripture teaches that men cannot respond in faith to the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message proves Calvinism cannot be true.

I’m not sure it is a departure. Anything I’ve read on Calvinism accepts increase of blindness in the sense I’ve expressed. As to their ability implied by ‘otherwise/lest’, the point I’m making is that 'otherwise/lest' was not in immediate relationship to repentance but through the means of opportunity granted by God. He was withdrawing that opportunity.

Whoa there! Hold it. You're saying God was withdrawing the opportunity granted to them to repent? So they had an opportunity it repent before but they didn't take it? They had the ability before? An opportunity implies ability, please explain.


The ‘dead’ can respond to the Word in every respect except savingly. They can hate the message and the messenger and the One preached; they can be smitten with guilt/fear and seek to be reconciled to this One, but only on their own terms. The parable of the soils reveals the reaction of ‘dead’ sinners. It is only good soil that brings forth fruit. To speak plainly, it is only when those who are dead in trespasses and sins are made alive that they bear fruit to God.[/quote][/qb]

Yes, and according to the parable of the soils a dead man can believe apparently. How does he manage to do that if he is "totally unable?"

The text does say that the hardening was to make certain the nation’s destruction, i.e. No repentance was to be granted them. It was to be spoken to an already rebellious nation, hard-hearted and blind. To me that entails a clear increase in blindness and rebellion. I don’t see any gymnastics involved.

What text says that? I'm not arguing, I'm just not sure which verse you are referring to.

Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
You may object that this applies to the regenerate man also, that ‘carnal’ Christians are in view, and they certainly are not Totally Depraved. But the case for T.D. is established by these verses[/quote][/qb] How can you really believe that? The point of TD that we are debating about has to do with man's inability to respond in faith to the gospel. These verses don't mention nor refer to faith nor do they even refer to the gospel. Proof that we are unable to please God while in the flesh in no way proves we are unable to leave the flesh and walk in faith when confronted by the Holy Spirit wrought message of the cross. If I said to my child, "Son as long as you are lying you cannot please me." Would that infer that my son can't stop lying? Of course not. That would simply be showing that as long as he is lying he can't please me. So, too as long as we remain in the flesh we can't please God. This says nothing about man's ability to leave the flesh and walk in faith.

for that carnal mind that besets the Christian is now only an unwelcome lodger with whom we war daily, but it is the only occupier in the case of the unsaved. We as Christians cannot reconcile it to God, much less the lost, who are totally controlled by it. It is their mind, their nature; they have no other, and they CANNOT know God or be subject to His law.

So you don't believe lost man can know God? Read Romans 1 again, does Paul contradict your view? He says they "clearly saw", "understood" and "knew" God and his divine attributes. In fact, he goes on to say that these factors are what makes them without excuse.

To these verses let me add:
Gen.8: 21And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
Ps.51: 5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Ps.58: 3The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Jer.13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.

These verses express no points of contention between us. I believe in orginal sin and man's inability to save himself without God's divine intervention.

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.

He also says "I will draw all men to myself." But as I have already explained I believe Jesus is speaking about the inability for the world at that time to come to him while he was there amidst them. The Gentiles hadn't yet been granted repentance and the Jews, except for the remnant, were being hardened. Only those the father had granted or given to the Son, {incarnate flesh while on earth) to train and commission to take the message to the world. In John 17 you see this laid out as Jesus prays for his apostles and refers to them as "those the Father had given to him." And then he prayes for "those who believe through their message." Proof that the Father has "set apart" the divinely inspired messengers is not proof that he saves those who hear their message in the same way.

John 8: 43Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

Actually its interesting that this passage earlier refers to Jesus' audience here as being believers. But once again, we must ask ourselves why does Christ not want to entrust himself to these men? Is it because he doesn't want them saved. NO. Read Matt. 23:37, 1 Peter 3:9, and 2 Tim 2:4 and you will see Gods desire for the people. He has temporarily hardened them and these harsh words only further anger them in there hardened state. God has a purpose to accomplish through their unbelief.

Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

And? She was a believer in God and God told her to listen to Paul. So what's your point?

Rom.6: 20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Eph.2: 1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

I don't see any points of contention raised here unless you apply a defination to the word "dead" that scripture never provides.

Dead in sins, slaves to sin, needing our hearts opened: a good description of T.D.

No, its a good discription of hardening, which is not from birth.

I had said, ‘God has cut them of from the means He uses to convert man; the hearing and understanding of the Word.’

Skandelon: But why? So they won't see, hear and understand otherwise they might. That is the only logical answer and it's even the answer the text gives. Why give another?

It is not another; it is the same reason but mediated by the use of means. God removes them from the opportunity of repentance.

[/b] Again your use of the word opportunity confuses me. Opportunity implies ability. What do you mean here?

Hmm, I see how I confused you. Let me try again; The Gentiles only have T.D. to be removed by God.

Scripture?

He removes that from those whom He has chosen among them. He could have treated the Jewish nation likewise. But for their wickedness in rebelling against so much light, He determines that the majority of them shall not have this mercy that their privileged position would suggest.

So much light??? According to you they were born blind and unable to see the light yet you have God judging them for their rebellion to that which they never could clearly see or understand? If you're right they sure are going to have a good excuse on judgement day. (That is according to Paul in Romans 1)

It was expected that ALL of the nation would be saved, for they were the people of the Promise. It was expected that ALL would have had their naturally hard hearts changed, in accordance with Ezek.36. But God removed even the degree of mercy He shows to the Gentiles.

He removed the mercy??? You make it seem as if God had originally planned on showing them mercy and then changed his mind, I know you don't believe that. The elect are chosen before the foundation of the world, right? How does God remove something they never had?

That can only be true if you define mercy as the possibility of repentance. If we take mercy to mean repentance unto life, then you must accept that such is not given to all without exception.

But even as you have implied throughout this post all men are given the possiblity (or opportunity) for repentance and that in and of itself is merciful, right?

Blessings.

 

[Eric B]

I don't follow your logic. If God made them sin, that would hold water, but giving them over to their own sinful desires does not.

Because "their own sin" that He "gave them over to" was just a means of "establishing them in wickedness". Therefore, God's eternal decree is the ultimate reason they are lost. In other words, God "knew" two groups of people from eternity. Both would be born as sinners, because of Adam, but as God conceives of each individual soul, one He declares will be saved, and the other passed over and remain lost. Then, He creates the world, Adam, the Fall occurs, and all of this "plays out" in time exactly as God first decreed it. The lost people weren't there shaping this decision (as Origen essentially taught), so why did they "sin" in the first place? Because it was God's plan. So supralapsarianism is unavoidable, and yes, God did basically make the person sin to fulfill His plan; some will even add to provide an example of the wrath God was saving the others from so they can praise Him more.

But let me ask you, is your system any 'fairer' in man's eyes? Do you not have God knowingly creating a universe that He knew would fall, and with that Fall millions of men and women would spend eternity in hell? Is that any better than either infra or supra lapsarianism?

The Calvinists always throw up this question to suggest it is still unavoidable even in our view, but that is where I say it can't be answered. In this issue, we will always come to a point where we can't understand or explain something (as it deals with God working in both eternity and in time-- way over our heads). The Calvinists say "God ordains all of this and leaves the reprobates "responsible", for "His secret counsel"; He "offers" them life, knowing they can't accept it, but it is still a "genuine" offer; etc. and we can't understand why, but just believe and accept the "tensions". But I think the idea of God specifically not wanting certain people saved, and ordaining and then then leaving them in this "sin" in order to fulfil that plan contradicts the good will the Gospel says is offered to all. It may have been His "sovereign right" to do that, but it does make God the author of sin, and is not what the scripture says He did do, and is misread into certain passages like Rom.9. We have crossed a line of understanding before we even get to that point. Why create a paradox between God offering salvation and essentially withholding at the same time? It's just to get around the implications mentioned above, but to me it is just better to say that God did leave the choice up to humans, and how this fit in with God's foreknowledge and sovereign control is the "tension" we cannot hope to figure out. One is a basic logical contradiction. The other by its very nature is something we cannot hope to comprehend this side of eternity.

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said, In other words, God "knew" two groups of people from eternity. Both would be born as sinners, because of Adam, but as God conceives of each individual soul, one He declares will be saved, and the other passed over and remain lost. Then, He creates the world, Adam, the Fall occurs, and all of this "plays out" in time exactly as God first decreed it. The lost people weren't there shaping this decision (as Origen essentially taught), so why did they "sin" in the first place? Because it was God's plan. So supralapsarianism is unavoidable, and yes, God did basically make the person sin to fulfill His plan; some will even add to provide an example of the wrath God was saving the others from so they can praise Him more.

The Calvinists always throw up this question [Is your system any 'fairer' in man's eyes? Do you not have God knowingly creating a universe that He knew would fall, and with that Fall millions of men and women would spend eternity in hell? Is that any better than either infra or supra lapsarianism?] to suggest it is still unavoidable even in our view, but that is where I say it can't be answered. In this issue, we will always come to a point where we can't understand or explain something (as it deals with God working in both eternity and in time-- way over our heads). The Calvinists say "God ordains all of this and leaves the reprobates "responsible", for "His secret counsel"; He "offers" them life, knowing they can't accept it, but it is still a "genuine" offer; etc. and we can't understand why, but just believe and accept the "tensions". But I think the idea of God specifically not wanting certain people saved, and ordaining and then then leaving them in this "sin" in order to fulfil that plan contradicts the good will the Gospel says is offered to all. It may have been His "sovereign right" to do that, but it does make God the author of sin, and is not what the scripture says He did do, and is misread into certain passages like Rom.9. We have crossed a line of understanding before we even get to that point. Why create a paradox between God offering salvation and essentially withholding at the same time? It's just to get around the implications mentioned above, but to me it is just better to say that God did leave the choice up to humans, and how this fit in with God's foreknowledge and sovereign control is the "tension" we cannot hope to figure out. One is a basic logical contradiction. The other by its very nature is something we cannot hope to comprehend this side of eternity.

Why did they sin in the first place? You say if it was God's plan, that makes Him the author of sin. I say it does not: the Scripture reveals both that God has ordained whatever comes to pass (like the crucifixion of Christ) but whatever is evil is the fault of the evildoer, whether demon or sinner. How this is so is hidden from us.

Why did they sin in the first place? You say it was due soley to their choice. That means that all of history, including the cross, might never have happened and God is hostage to the whims of His creation. Let me ask you, does free-will exist today, in either angel or man? If it does, what is to guarantee there will not be another Fall of angels or men? Answering that this is hidden from us seems to me to be a lot less credible than the Calvinist position.

As to the Calvinist position, 'specifically not wanting certain people saved' is a minority position. Most Calvinists hold to the 'two wills of God' idea, that He can both desire all of his creatures to walk in holiness before Him and yet decide not to enforce that on some.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said,
The grammatical term you are look for is called "stretching" the scripture to make it fit your doctrine.

Yes, we both have claimed that regarding the difficult texts. That is something I have learnt in our discussions, that there ARE texts which on the face of it seem to contradict Calvinism. Not just the 'all' type that can be shown to be open to either argument, but texts that can only be accounted for by saying that the missing qualifier is implied. The Calvinist/Arminian understanding of the text must then be defended by comparing text with text. You have used this 'implicit' understanding to make 'granted repentance' mean granted the opportunity to repent'. Eric used it more exensively in defending an Arminian understanding of 'God has chosen' in 1 Cor.1:26-29. Here he made it to mean 'God has arranged the circumstances so that more of certain types will choose Him.'

I assert that the difficulties posed and the further difficulties raised in overcoming the original difficulties are far less for Calvinism than for Arminianism. For example, to defend your understanding of the hardening in Romans 9, you had to make the 'fulness of the Gentiles' occur in the apostolic generation. To refute sovereign election you have to allow the possibility of men being saved without hearing the gospel.

You still haven't proven the case that those who are hardened will certainly perish in their sins. Paul makes it quite clear that hardened Jews may be provoked to envy and be saved. (Romans 11:14)

I have already pointed out that he refers to the lost of Israel, not the hardened lost.

scripture teaches that men cannot respond in faith to the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message proves Calvinism cannot be true.

Depends what you mean by 'Holy Spirit wrought'. Calvinists believe that men cannot NOT respond in faith to the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message, if by that you mean the message coming in the power of Him who 'blows where He will'. If you mean however the convicting work of the Spirit, where He touches men's consciences but does not change their hearts, then Yes, men cannot respond in faith to that.

Whoa there! Hold it. You're saying God was withdrawing the opportunity granted to them to repent? So they had an opportunity it repent before but they didn't take it? They had the ability before? An opportunity implies ability, please explain.

Sure. All who hear the gospel have an opportunity to repent. They will not take it unless God gives them a new heart to desire so. However, my use of the term in this specific case was the opportunity the promises to Israel had accorded. Their rebellion had led to these promises being witheld from them.

But I must challenge your assertion that opportunity implies ability. Opportunity to obey the Law did not mean the Jews had the ability. 'Do this and live' brought no ability with it. It is God's sovereign grace under the New Covenant that brings ability with opportunity - I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.Jer.31:33.


Yes, and according to the parable of the soils a dead man can believe apparently. How does he manage to do that if he is "totally unable?"

I don't know what you mean - please explain where this is in the parable.

What text says that? [The text does say that the hardening was to make certain the nation’s destruction, i.e. No repentance was to be granted them.]

John 12:40.

How can you really believe that? The point of TD that we are debating about has to do with man's inability to respond in faith to the gospel. These verses [Rom.8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 1 Cor.2: 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.]don't mention nor refer to faith nor do they even refer to the gospel. Proof that we are unable to please God while in the flesh in no way proves we are unable to leave the flesh and walk in faith when confronted by the Holy Spirit wrought message of the cross. If I said to my child, "Son as long as you are lying you cannot please me." Would that infer that my son can't stop lying? Of course not. That would simply be showing that as long as he is lying he can't please me. So, too as long as we remain in the flesh we can't please God. This says nothing about man's ability to leave the flesh and walk in faith.

'Cannot receive' is a clear statement of inability. That applies to repentance and faith, to receiving the truth about God and embracing it.

So you don't believe lost man can know God? Read Romans 1 again, does Paul contradict your view? He says they "clearly saw", "understood" and "knew" God and his divine attributes. In fact, he goes on to say that these factors are what makes them without excuse.

Ther is 'know' and 'know'. For saving knowledge, man needs more than for condemning knowledge. The unbelieving Jews knew Jesus, some so well that they blasphemed the Spirit in their rejection of Christ, but they did not 'know' Him. John 7:28 Then Jesus cried out, as He taught in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.John 8:19 Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also."

More later, DV.

In Him

Ian

 

[Eric B]

Why did they sin in the first place? You say if it was God's plan, that makes Him the author of sin. I say it does not: the Scripture reveals both that God has ordained whatever comes to pass (like the crucifixion of Christ) but whatever is evil is the fault of the evildoer, whether demon or sinner. How this is so is hidden from us.

Why did they sin in the first place? You say it was due soley to their choice. That means that all of history, including the cross, might never have happened and God is hostage to the whims of His creation.

So what you have here is that God created the reality of sin (substituting the word "ordained"), but He just charges man with it, pronouncing Him "guilty" by fiat. As I said, it is all then just a script. If a filmmaker writes a script where a character does evil, then the character "IS" "guilty" (we the viewers would say), not the filmmaker, even though he wrote it. But that of course is not real life, so it cannot be true. We must be getting something wrong.
Of course, the only other option is then said to be that God is not in control ["hostage to the whims of His creation"], what if the Cross didn't happen, etc. and then others here have told us that only Open Theism would be consistent. I believe as part of God's sovereignty and omnipotence, He can be in control of it all without "ordaining" the evil positively (and then holding the poor helpless players "responsible"). We are so time and space bound, and cannot think outside a familiar pattern or sequence of events. Asking "what if there was no Cross" attempts to understand God's realm, and thus bring it down to our level. (A must follow B, etc.). Then you ask "Why did they sin in the first place? You say it was due soley to their choice", and this would lead to God not being in control. Also,

Let me ask you, does free-will exist today, in either angel or man? If it does, what is to guarantee there will not be another Fall of angels or men? Answering that this is hidden from us seems to me to be a lot less credible than the Calvinist position.

But do you see that before you were trying to deny that God caused sin, and that sin is only caused by the sinners' themselves' own "choice"; yet now you are criticizing the idea that it was their own choice, because then, the Fall or the Cross may not have happened, and God would be at our whim.
All of this logic leads once again, to double-predestination, yet many of you refuse to accept/confess that position. This is a big hole in the theory. So yes, it IS best to say that it is hidden from us before we get to this point. We agree that man is guilty of sin, God is not, God is in control. You try to reason that He charges people with sin, to make them "guilty" and "deserving of condemnation" in order to justify Him choosing only some and deliberatly passing by all others. When asked "why", then you say "it is hidden from us". But we say that if God is really not the cause of sin, then somehow he must have left something open to the Creatures, and rather than not being in control, He somehow still is, and this is what is hidden from us.

As to the Calvinist position, 'specifically not wanting certain people saved' is a minority position. Most Calvinists hold to the 'two wills of God' idea, that He can both desire all of his creatures to walk in holiness before Him and yet decide not to enforce that on some.

But then this simply parallels the issue of God giving the people their own choice in the matter. Either we admit that God did leave that open to the individual (which you say makes Him not in control; we say it is His sovereign right to do that), or you have God contradicting Himself (He wants to save certain individuals, but doesn't, which you then claim is hidden knowledge). Still, the point was, even if He did "want" to save them on some level, in the higher will of the decrees, He didn't.
But the Bible says the Gospel is offfered to all as "good news to all men", and it does not speak in some hypothetical language. For instance:

Sure. All who hear the gospel have an opportunity to repent. They will not take it unless God gives them a new heart to desire so.

But I must challenge your assertion that opportunity implies ability. Opportunity to obey the Law did not mean the Jews had the ability. 'Do this and live' brought no ability with it

But that is not an "opportunity" then, in any real sense. To us, who don't know God's decree, it may look like an opportunity, and we may tell such a non-elect person "Now you have an opportunity to repent. Now is the day of salvation...", etc. But if the "hidden" truth be known, it is NO opportunity, and this is where the two sides are clashing.
What God was showing them was they did not have the "opportunity" to save themselves by trying to follow the Law in their own power without His grace. Nowhere is this presented as any true "opportunity" that they blew, (which would suggest that they theoretically could have done it).

There is 'know' and 'know'. For saving knowledge, man needs more than for condemning knowledge.

But condemning knowledge in itself can be enough to lead one to seek what will save Him. "I'm in a bind, how do I get out of this?". Some may call out to God "Please save me!". Some may only think about all they would have to give up or whatever, and not want to go that way. Some from that latter group may later repent. Then, once they do, They will be converted, and become one of those who "know" Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
For example, to defend your understanding of the hardening in Romans 9, you had to make the 'fulness of the Gentiles' occur in the apostolic generation. To refute sovereign election you have to allow the possibility of men being saved without hearing the gospel.

No, I don't "have to" make the fulness of the Gentiles occure in the apostolic generation, Adam Clark doesn't. I personally THINK that the fullness is in reference to the number needed for the Gentiles to establish themselves within the church but I have readily admitted that was speculation. I've also pointed out that it doesn't matter either way you take it. And no I've never said that I believed the scripture taught that men could be saved without hearing the gospel. I said that the scripture doesn't address that question specifically. The scripture does speak of the blood of men being on the one who was to be their messenger. It speaks of the fact that without law their is no sin. It speaks about man's conscience and the revelation of creation leaving them without excuse unless they indeed to acknowledge God. From these things we can speculate what God might do, but it is speculation. Just as you must speculate as to why God would choose to save some and not others. But these issues don't contradict scripture as it seems you have done with John 12:39-41 and the others like it.

I have already pointed out that he refers to the lost of Israel, not the hardened lost.

All of Israel who were not saved were hardened as indicated by the words "the rest were hardened" in Romans 11. Plus, the fact that Jesus spoke to large crowds of people accusing them of being unable to believe because of their hardened hearts and it was these same crowds that had him crucified. And according to Actsmany, literally hundreds, of those accused by Peter as being among those who killed Christ came to faith in him. Do you really think that Jesus would have made a blanket statement about them all being hardened if some of those he was addressing were not hardened at all? Wouldn't he have said, "Some of you don't believe because you have been hardened."

Depends what you mean by 'Holy Spirit wrought'. Calvinists believe that men cannot NOT respond in faith to the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message, if by that you mean the message coming in the power of Him who 'blows where He will'. If you mean however the convicting work of the Spirit, where He touches men's consciences but does not change their hearts, then Yes, men cannot respond in faith to that.

The gospel is not the same thing as the effectual calling and you can't equate the two even in your system. The effectual calling, in you system, must precede the call of the gospel for it to have any effect. What I mean by Holy Spirit wrought, it that bringing the gospel to the world was a divine act. The Spirit is in the Word. The Word has power. I mean the spoken word, not some secret hidden irresistable inward calling that scripture never expounds upon. But it is also clear in scripture that people can resist the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7)

Sure. All who hear the gospel have an opportunity to repent. They will not take it unless God gives them a new heart to desire so.

Then its not a real opportunity. An opportunity implies ability by its defination. You have stated they don't have that ability. I know, I know, they have the ability but not the desire, right? Sorry, that is semantics because the fact is you believe they are unable to be willing which affords the same argument.

But I must challenge your assertion that opportunity implies ability. Opportunity to obey the Law did not mean the Jews had the ability. 'Do this and live' brought no ability with it.

It was never meant to. The Law's purpose was to reveal their sin, the law offered no opportunity. The gospel does. The law revealed to them their inability to be perfect and the gospel was the solution to that problem. Your system applies man's inability to keep the law to an inability to respond in faith to God's solution to that predicament. That is absurd.

This might be overly simplitic but think this phrase: A child can't reach the sink because he is too short. So his Father built a stool for him to stand on.

Someone takes that statment and interprets it to mean that because the child was unable to reach the sink before the Father solution that he still must be unable to reach the sink even with the stool. That is how I see Calvinism. They say we can't respond to God's solution all the while quoting passages about men's inability before the gospel was sent into the world.

I don't know what you mean - please explain where this is in the parable.

You know the seeds on the soil. Matt. 13

What text says that? [The text does say that the hardening was to make certain the nation’s destruction, i.e. No repentance was to be granted them.]

John 12:40.

40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."

Where does this say that hardening was to make certain the nations destruction? And that no repentance would ever be granted to them?

'Cannot receive' is a clear statement of inability. That applies to repentance and faith, to receiving the truth about God and embracing it.

Yes, "cannot receive" does imply inability, but the question is; inability to do what? The inability to please God WHILE IN THE FLESH. So if I were to say to you, "As long as you remain a Calvinist you cannot please me." Would that imply that you cannot leave Calvinism? NO. It would simply imply what it says which is that as long as you remain a Calvinis you won't be able to please me. So too this statement only says that as long as one walks in the flesh they cannot please God. Nothing is said about the inability to leave that flesh in walk in faith. NOTHING.

Ther is 'know' and 'know'. For saving knowledge, man needs more than for condemning knowledge.

Scripture?

The unbelieving Jews knew Jesus, some so well that they blasphemed the Spirit in their rejection of Christ, but they did not 'know' Him. John 7:28 Then Jesus cried out, as He taught in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.John 8:19 Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also."

I believe men can know God through faith in Christ.

Got to run.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said, These verses express no points of contention between us. I believe in orginal sin and man's inability to save himself without God's divine intervention.

But you also say man can be saved without the gospel, merely from conscience and natural revelation. Those are common to all men. Divine intervention is God acting on the rebel to give him a new heart so that he will repent. These verses show not merely original sin, but SLAVERY to that sin. Slavery so that conscience, natural revelation and even the gospel will go unheeded, unless God changes the sinner's heart.

Acts 16: 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And? She was a believer in God and God told her to listen to Paul. So what's your point?

The point is that God had to open her heart to accept Paul's message (not 'tell her to listen to Paul'). A woman who was already being drawn by God had to have His intervention in order to believe the gospel. Much more so previously ignorant sinners.

I had said, 'Dead in sins, slaves to sin, needing our hearts opened: a good description of T.D.'
No, its a good discription of hardening, which is not from birth.

No, for the folk Paul referred to were the Ephesian Gentiles, not the Jews. Paul describes the state of every man who comes into the world, Jew and Gentile alike. Special hardening was added to the majority Jewish nation for its abuse of its priveleges.

So much light??? According to you they were born blind and unable to see the light yet you have God judging them for their rebellion to that which they never could clearly see or understand? If you're right they sure are going to have a good excuse on judgement day. (That is according to Paul in Romans 1)

As I pointed out before, there is a light that all can see - conscience, natural revelation, the gospel message - but it is the worth of that truth man is blind to. That is the part that man suppresses, denies. The metaphor of blindness God uses to describe our spiritual state does not rule out all recognition of the truth about God. It accurately describes man's utter enmity to this truth. It is their inborn hatred of God that prevents them acknowledging Him. Satan has blinded their minds so that they will not accept the truth set forth to them. The metaphor of blindness/sight speaks not of merely believing in God but embracing the One believed in.


He removed the mercy??? You make it seem as if God had originally planned on showing them mercy and then changed his mind, I know you don't believe that. The elect are chosen before the foundation of the world, right? How does God remove something they never had?

Because we are speaking of the nation which had the Law, the promises, God's goodness manifested to them. But unbelief and rebellion brought judgement eventually, and God gave the majority of them over to destruction - no repentance being granted to them. Mercy removed. That is the outward manifestation of His purposes, but behind that we know that He from eternity had elected a people for Himself and only they would experience His saving mercy. So my reference was to the outward working, the nation being denied mercy.

But even as you have implied throughout this post all men are given the possiblity (or opportunity) for repentance and that in and of itself is merciful, right?

It certainly is, just like not being immediately cast into hell. But that common mercy is not the saving mercy the 'vessels of mercy' are prepared for.

Must rush.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said, All of this logic leads once again, to double-predestination, yet many of you refuse to accept/confess that position. This is a big hole in the theory. So yes, it IS best to say that it is hidden from us before we get to this point. We agree that man is guilty of sin, God is not, God is in control. You try to reason that He charges people with sin, to make them "guilty" and "deserving of condemnation" in order to justify Him choosing only some and deliberatly passing by all others. When asked "why", then you say "it is hidden from us". But we say that if God is really not the cause of sin, then somehow he must have left something open to the Creatures, and rather than not being in control, He somehow still is, and this is what is hidden from us.

We say that God is not the author of evil, yet He has ordained all that comes to pass; the reconciliation of these two truths is what is hidden from us. You call that a big hole in our theory.

You say that somehow he must have left something open to the Creatures, and rather than not being in control, He somehow still is, and this is what is hidden from us. That is the 'big hole' in your theory.

Which mystery do we see addressed in Scripture? We would expect such a fundemental problem to be raised somewhere - and it is. Romans 9: 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and 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?

But that is not an "opportunity" then, in any real sense. To us, who don't know God's decree, it may look like an opportunity, and we may tell such a non-elect person "Now you have an opportunity to repent. Now is the day of salvation...", etc. But if the "hidden" truth be known, it is NO opportunity, and this is where the two sides are clashing.

Your quarrell on the use of 'opportunity' is with God, not me. It is God who holds Israel guilty for not fulfilling the obligations of His Law. 'Do this and live' was the offer of the Law and everyone who despised that Law died without mercy. Everyone who failed to observe everything written in the Law was under its curse. Yes, they could not keep it because they were slaves to sin, but God still held them responsible. THEY were at fault; their evil nature made them responsible, even though they were born that way. Calvinists did not invent this, it is the clear record of Scripture.

You may try to say the Law was not meant as an opportunity to be saved, for it was given to prove to men that they must receive God's righteousness as they cannot be good enough themselves. That was indeed the ultimate intention of the Law - but it was given for both reasons, as the Scripture describes the moral guilt of those who broke the Law. Likewise with election and the free offer. Opportunity does not imply ability. It is God who determines what is 'true opportunity'.


But condemning knowledge in itself can be enough to lead one to seek what will save Him. "I'm in a bind, how do I get out of this?". Some may call out to God "Please save me!". Some may only think about all they would have to give up or whatever, and not want to go that way. Some from that latter group may later repent. Then, once they do, They will be converted, and become one of those who "know" Christ.

If we define 'condemning knowledge' as you just did, then I agree. That is the knowledge of the guilty conscience. But I used it in the narrower sense of merely being that knowledge, i.e. not leading to repentance and the knowledge of God. Not all who have the one have the other. True believers experience both.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
But you also say man can be saved without the gospel, merely from conscience and natural revelation. Those are common to all men. Divine intervention is God acting on the rebel to give him a new heart so that he will repent. These verses show not merely original sin, but SLAVERY to that sin. Slavery so that conscience, natural revelation and even the gospel will go unheeded, unless God changes the sinner's heart.

I didn't say that I dogmatically believe men could be saved apart from the gospel. I said that the bible doesn't address what specifically happens to those who never hear the gospel and that Romans 1 seemed to indicate that people have it within their capasity to know and acknowledge God through creation. I pointed to people such as Cornelius and Lydia as examples of those who were considered "God fearers" but hadn't yet heard the gospel. Then from that I speculated that God may judge men based upon the level of their revelation and punish them accordingly. The point is we don't know because the Bible is not specific. Abraham is declared righteous because of his faith, not because of his faith specifically in the second person of the trinity, Christ, but in God. The key to righteousness is faith in God (Rom 11) even if that knowledge of God might be limited to only that which is revealed in creation. Still, no one is atoned a part from Christ's work, even if they are not fully informed of that work. When someone today in America says that someone can be saved a part from knowing the gospel i would have a big problem with that because it is the greatest and most authorative revelation of God known to man and its widely known, but when talking about those in far off lands who don't have the gospel we must speculate as to their ability and to God's judgment of them. Calvinist speculate one thing and Arminians another, but both speculate.

The point is that God had to open her heart to accept Paul's message (not 'tell her to listen to Paul'). A woman who was already being drawn by God had to have His intervention in order to believe the gospel. Much more so previously ignorant sinners.

It says she worshipped God. She would have been like the disciple of John the Baptist who were later baptized in the name of Christ. They had already made a choice to believe and follow God's ways, it was just a matter of them knowing how their sin was covered on the cross. God, already being her master, made her willing to listen to him. I have that happen to me today. I'll have a brother call me about a ministry and feel a very strong pulling from God that He wants me to listen and get involved. There were many people in those days preaching different messages and presenting different Jesus' to believe in. It seems that this verse is simply saying that God informed one of his worshippers to listen to Paul's message so that she could know the mystery that the prophets of old are said to have longed to know and understand.

No, for the folk Paul referred to were the Ephesian Gentiles, not the Jews. Paul describes the state of every man who comes into the world, Jew and Gentile alike. Special hardening was added to the majority Jewish nation for its abuse of its priveleges.

Ian, remember that there is a self-hardening or a stubbornness as Heb. warns us against when it says, "Do not let your hearts grow hardened." But that is not the same as the judicial hardening in which God takes a stubborn will and seals him in that unbelief in order to accomplish a purpose through him. This is done so temporarily and purposefully and its not from birth.

But as to all being born dead, again you must define dead as being "unable" and that is never accomplished in the text. Plus, I've always just accepted that people were born "dead" but Eph. doesn't say that. In fact in James 1:15 it speaks of sin giving birth to death, not death giving birth to sin as you would have it. In Eph. it speaks of them being dead in Sin "in which they formerly walked" and it never links "death" specifically to "birth." Is there another verse that links birth to death? Could it be that "death" is another way of describing the self hardening process that comes once one recieves the truth and continually rejects it for a life of sin, thus leading to death? The wages of sin is death, which I know can be taken in several ways, but on this issue it seems that death would come after sin is committed. I'm just exploring on this part, I still hold to the fact that death cannot be linked to total inability.

As I pointed out before, there is a light that all can see - conscience, natural revelation, the gospel message - but it is the worth of that truth man is blind to. That is the part that man suppresses, denies.

Ok, you have put the gospel in the same catagory as natural revelation and thus have determined that because men reject natural revelation they must also reject the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message. That is a poor assumption without any biblical support. First, the Spirit is in the Word. Plus, it creates another problem because if men and clearly know and understand natural revelation then they can clearly know and understand the gospel, yet Calvinism's TD seems to indicate they can't clearly know or understand it. You side step that by now saying its the worth they are blind to. I could agree with that to some extent. They are blind to the worth of faith until someone tells them its worth, which is exactly what the gospel does. If they choose to deny that worth, its not because they didn't see it or hear it, its because they made a choice to rebell and for that they will be held accountable without excuse.

Another point: What proof is there that everyone has and always will refuse to acknowledge God as God after seeing and knowing him through creation? What about the ethiopian eunoch? Just searching.

The metaphor of blindness God uses to describe our spiritual state does not rule out all recognition of the truth about God.

So, you are saying its not "total" just partial blindness?

It accurately describes man's utter enmity to this truth. It is their inborn hatred of God that prevents them acknowledging Him. Satan has blinded their minds so that they will not accept the truth set forth to them. The metaphor of blindness/sight speaks not of merely believing in God but embracing the One believed in.

Exactly my point. So the responsiblity rests upon the person accepting or rejecting not upon God making it known and understandable to them. It is made known and it is understood, therefore they are responsible to accept it. If they reject it, they are condemned justly. You assume that they "cannot" accept it based upon texts that either speak about those being judicially hardened or those who have chosen to reject. Where is the verse that teach they can't accept the truth of the gospel? It's not there. You can only point to ones that say they don't accept, not ones that say they can't accept. If you argue that no one will accept then I would simply point to Heb. 11 at all those who have had faith in God. So there are some who accept God, but why? You say its because God chose them to accept him while passing over all the rest leaving them unable to accept which is merely an assumption on your part. An assumption that put undue stress upon the scripture and paints God in a negative light as the one who begs people to do that which He doesn't enable them to do.

Because we are speaking of the nation which had the Law, the promises, God's goodness manifested to them. But unbelief and rebellion brought judgement eventually, and God gave the majority of them over to destruction - no repentance being granted to them. Mercy removed. That is the outward manifestation of His purposes, but behind that we know that He from eternity had elected a people for Himself and only they would experience His saving mercy. So my reference was to the outward working, the nation being denied mercy.

You proved my point here concerning Romans 9. Granting mercy doesn't necessarily mean they will be saved. Just as the Jews were being granted mercy by being given the law so too the Gentiles in Romans 9 are being presented as the ones who receive mercy. That doesn't mean all of them will be saved. Just as the Jews are presented as being hardened doesn't mean that all of them will be lost. He is speaking in general of the nations in Romans 9 and therefore can't be supporting the Calvinistic premise of individual election. He is showing a nation mercy by granting them repentance and he is showing a nation wrath by hardening them in their rebellion, but each individual Gentile and each individual Jew is responsible to believe the message of the cross because the covenant is through the Promise or the Covenant of faith, not through blood.

It certainly is, just like not being immediately cast into hell. But that common mercy is not the saving mercy the 'vessels of mercy' are prepared for.

Again, you're missing the point that when he says "vessel of mercy" he is speaking nationally about Gentiles being "vessels of mercy." Of course it is understood that the ones who recieve grace are those who actually accept the message of mercy and believe in Christ by answering his call. At this time, the Gentiles, in large numbers, were doing just that. "They attained it...through pursuit by faith" as Paul explains in the last part of this chapter.

 

[Eric B]

We say that God is not the author of evil, yet He has ordained all that comes to pass; the reconciliation of these two truths is what is hidden from us. You call that a big hole in our theory.

You say that somehow he must have left something open to the Creatures, and rather than not being in control, He somehow still is, and this is what is hidden from us. That is the 'big hole' in your theory.

Which mystery do we see addressed in Scripture? We would expect such a fundemental problem to be raised somewhere - and it is. Romans 9:

We've discussed Romans 9. He is not addressing any issue of "God denying people an opportunity to repent, yet still holding them 'responsible'". Sorry, your "mystery" was read into the text to justify it, but nobody was thinking of any such question back then. The issue was the purpose of the nation of Israel, and if they were saved by their inheritance, and whether gentiles could be called. That's it. Yet to ask how God works both in time and in eternity; that is somethign by its very nature that is incomprehensible.

Your quarrell on the use of 'opportunity' is with God, not me. It is God who holds Israel guilty for not fulfilling the obligations of His Law. 'Do this and live' was the offer of the Law and everyone who despised that Law died without mercy. Everyone who failed to observe everything written in the Law was under its curse. Yes, they could not keep it because they were slaves to sin, but God still held them responsible. THEY were at fault; their evil nature made them responsible, even though they were born that way. Calvinists did not invent this, it is the clear record of Scripture.

You may try to say the Law was not meant as an opportunity to be saved, for it was given to prove to men that they must receive God's righteousness as they cannot be good enough themselves. That was indeed the ultimate intention of the Law - but it was given for both reasons, as the Scripture describes the moral guilt of those who broke the Law. Likewise with election and the free offer. Opportunity does not imply ability. It is God who determines what is 'true opportunity'.

Yes, it was given for both reasons, but each individual could still believe in faith, and be justified, and not doing that was the reason for anyone being lost back then (Romans 9:31,32, Hebrews 4:2). So the inability to keep the Law has nothing to do with salvation, because God's whole plan was to save men, not save and damn, and comparing salvation or repentance to the Law simply creates another "Law of sin and death", and is not good news. God gives us the Way to get around "inability".

 

[Skandelon]

So the inability to keep the Law has nothing to do with salvation, because God's whole plan was to save men, not save and damn, and comparing salvation or repentance to the Law simply creates another "Law of sin and death", and is not good news. God gives us the Way to get around "inability".

AMEN!!!

I wish Calvinists could see the truth of this statement.

 

[BBNewton]

God's whole plan is not to save men, but wrather it is wrather to glorify himself.

If God's whole plan was to save men, then his plan has equalled a gigantic failure because of the multitudes who are not saved. All glory goes to God:

"I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted." (Job 42:2)