Good Debate 2

[Luke2427]

I did several times. You dismissed my arguments as being 'emotive' and later by saying, "This is not an argument so I cannot offer a counter point."

Which was correct. You were not making an argument.

The only argument that I know of that you have made is that I don't have historical support.

That's the space you've been unable to move from.

You said,

And you've yet to show how that statement (1) is consistent with Calvinism's view of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace and (2) is supported historically by other Calvinistic scholars.

You have yet to show how it is INCONSISTENT.

You are the one making the claim that it is inconsistent. Show how. The impetus for warrant is on the one making the claim.

And what space have you moved from there Luke?

You've been in check for a hundred posts.

You wanted to know how that passage is consistent with the DoG. I showed how which put you in check and your only move was to claim that Calvinists have not historcially taken that position.

I showed you were Calvin himself took it on that very passage which put you in check again.

You retorted by saying basically- Uh-uh.

That was an illegal move so you are still in check.

You have not moved from that space in one hundred posts.

It's checkmate.

 

[Skandelon]

Which was correct. You were not making an argument.

The only argument that I know of that you have made is that I don't have historical support.

Which goes to prove the bigger point of MY ARGUMENT, which is that your view is not consistent with the tenets of Calvinism and yet you still claim to be a Calvinist. Either your view IS consistent with Calvinism or its not. If its not then admit your not a Calvinist and move on...

Your view has clearly been show to be at odds with Calvinism's teaching regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace. I've proven this through several ARGUMENTS with sited documentation (which you dismissed). I can't argue with someone who is unwilling to acknowledge my argument.

That's the space you've been unable to move from.

I can't move my piece until you move yours... still waiting....

You have yet to show how it is INCONSISTENT.

I did several times and you said it was an emotional argument and then you dismissed it as not being an argument at all... What else can I do until you make a move?

You wanted to know how that passage is consistent with the DoG. I showed how which put you in check and your only move was to claim that Calvinists have not historcially taken that position.

Did you mean to say "is NOT consistent with the DoG? If so, then my move to claim and SHOW that Calvinists haven't and still don't support this position is PROOF that it is inconsistent with the DoGs. How better to prove that a view is inconsistent with the DoGs than to quote you scholars who teach the DoGs that are inconsistent with you?

I showed you were Calvin himself took it on that very passage which put you in check again.

You retorted by saying basically- Uh-uh.

Luke, you know better. Go back and read the thread. I went point by point through Calvin's quote and showed you notable scholars take on that passage which are still consistent with Calvin's statement, but NOT consistent with your claims about that statement.

You dismissed that response as being irrelevant. I can't debate someone who arbitrarily dismisses arguments any more so than I can play chess with someone who pretends that my moves aren't really moves. So, until you decide to move this game is at a stalemate.

It should be noted that you still refuse to produce a single scholar who clearly elaborates your point of view, and that you have refused to answer the questions about the consistency of your view in light of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.

Your move...

 

[MorseOp]

This concept of God working to actively prevent people from hearing and believing the Gospel is the point I'm taking issue with...as so would most Calvinistic scholars IMO. What do you all think?

Be careful with the ""most" Calvinistic scholars." Infra and supralapsarianism incorporate God's will regarding the non-elect. One view purports that God passes over the non-elect but does not will them to perdition. The other view teaches that God chooses both groups (elect and non-elect). I will use one of your favorite sayings; "it is a difference without a distinction." If God chooses some out of a group, He is making de facto choice regarding those He did not choose. In the Reformed community supralapsarianism (God chooses both groups) is the majority view. I stress "Reformed community" because there are quite a few churches that believe in the doctrines of grace but are not Reformed.

 

[psalms109:31]

The truth makes those not of faith, but prideful very uncomfortable.

God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and desires no one to die, but repent and live.

God has made His will known by many prophets to prepare the way for Christ how to come to His Son.

We are to be meek and humble and trust in the Lord. We are not to lean on our own understanding but trust in the Lord.

I personal have no problem with God hiding the truth from the wise and learned the prideful, that He uses mans own pride to hide the truth from them. They are the ones who have turned away from God and worshiped what was created over the Creator. God didn't want them to do so nor was it His will, but He gave them over to their own evil desire. He uses preventive grace on the prideful and who love themselves over their own creator.

We must realize there is a big difference between pride, love of oneself of what we believe and faith in God from His word that came from above through Jesus Christ. Pride comes from our self, the faith comes from God. We can make them one in the same and try to make people ashamed of what God has given us. Pride will lead us to destruction faith will lead us to life the faith that comes from the words of Jesus and the words about Him.

If one lives they live because of Christ and what He has done if they perish it is not because of God, but their own pride. God does not get any glory or does He desire for any to perish, but rather them to repent and live; Nor will His glory be taken away by a fool who has the truth right before him and walks away because of their own pride.

 

[Luke2427]

Which goes to prove the bigger point of MY ARGUMENT, which is that your view is not consistent with the tenets of Calvinism and yet you still claim to be a Calvinist. Either your view IS consistent with Calvinism or its not. If its not then admit your not a Calvinist and move on...

Your view has clearly been show to be at odds with Calvinism's teaching regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace. I've proven this through several ARGUMENTS with sited documentation (which you dismissed). I can't argue with someone who is unwilling to acknowledge my argument.

I can't move my piece until you move yours... still waiting....


I did several times and you said it was an emotional argument and then you dismissed it as not being an argument at all... What else can I do until you make a move?

Did you mean to say "is NOT consistent with the DoG? If so, then my move to claim and SHOW that Calvinists haven't and still don't support this position is PROOF that it is inconsistent with the DoGs. How better to prove that a view is inconsistent with the DoGs than to quote you scholars who teach the DoGs that are inconsistent with you?

Luke, you know better. Go back and read the thread. I went point by point through Calvin's quote and showed you notable scholars take on that passage which are still consistent with Calvin's statement, but NOT consistent with your claims about that statement.

You dismissed that response as being irrelevant. I can't debate someone who arbitrarily dismisses arguments any more so than I can play chess with someone who pretends that my moves aren't really moves. So, until you decide to move this game is at a stalemate.

It should be noted that you still refuse to produce a single scholar who clearly elaborates your point of view, and that you have refused to answer the questions about the consistency of your view in light of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.

Your move...

All of these words and you still have not moved.

Your argument is that I have no historical support for my position and that you made an argument when you didn't.

And that's it.

That's all you have done for one hundred posts.

I think it is becoming more clear to any who read this that I am accurately representing what you are doing with each post you present.

And by the way- I expect better of you. This "I am not a Calvinist because on one passage I say something that you THINK the majority of Calvinists disagree with" mess- it's absurd.

Do better, Skan.

It is utterly ridiculous and beneath you to claim that one is not a Calvinist over something that unspeakably silly.

 

[Skandelon]

Tell that to MorseOP and the other Calvinistic posters who have contradicted your line of reasoning. You are getting defensive now which is a clear sign that you have been backed into a corner. You have put yourself into an indefensible spot.

It is utterly ridiculous and beneath you to claim that one is not a Calvinist over something that unspeakably silly.

I am not claiming that you are not a Calvinist. It's the very fact that you claim to be Calvinist while attempting to defend a NON-CALVINISTIC view that makes your position illogical (not consistent with Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace) and thus unable to be historically validated by any scholar from your camp.

I don't want this is get personal, so we better end it. I'm happy to bring in a few Calvinistic posters to get their take on this. I doubt you'll want to do that because I think you know where that will lead.

 

[MorseOp]

Skan, not having read the entire thread, can you bullet point for me the area(s) in which you believe Luke is in contradiction with the DoG?

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, not having read the entire thread, can you bullet point for me the area(s) in which you believe Luke is in contradiction with the DoG?

Sure...

Luke: "God, for whatever reason, has chosen to typically infuse the proclamation of the Gospel with the work of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, God typically chooses to employ means to prevent that Gospel from regenerating both the elect at certain times and the non-elect throughout their lives."

I confronted Luke with Mark 4, where it teaches that Jesus spoke in parables to prevent 'those on the outside' from understanding and being converted. I asked him, "If all men are born totally depraved then why would the gospel need to be hidden in parables to prevent these people's conversion?"

His conclusion is that the proclaimed gospel could cause a non-elect person to be regenerated, so in order to prevent that from happening God employes preventative means, such as parables.

I'd love to hear your input.

 

[MorseOp]

Sure...

I confronted Luke with Mark 4, where it teaches that Jesus spoke in parables to prevent 'those on the outside' from understanding and being converted. I asked him, "If all men are born totally depraved then why would the gospel need to be hidden in parables to prevent these people's conversion?"

His conclusion is that the proclaimed gospel could cause a non-elect person to be regenerated, so in order to prevent that from happening God employes preventative means, such as parables.

I'd love to hear your input.

One of my professors covered this very question during a synoptic gospels lecture. He postulated (and I agree) that Jesus intended His parables to require further explanation in order to be spiritually discerned. It wasn't a matter of understanding the actual words Jesus spoke. Those were understood well enough. It was the spiritual truth at the heart of the parables that was veiled to some. In fact, some of Jesus's disciples didn't completely understand until after Jesus had died, risen, and appeared to them (c.f. Luke 24; road to Emmaus narrative). Also, it's not the Gospel that is veiled to those who are perishing, but rather their ability to positively respond to it (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:3):

2 Cor. 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,

The non-elect can certainly understand the words of the Gospel, they just can't appropriate the spiritual truth contained in those words.

So, parables certainly were used to veil certain things, to certain people, during certain times. What we have to be careful of is grouping all parables together. Even some of the disciples weren't able to understand Jesus' parables without His explaining them plainly.

 

[Skandelon]

It wasn't a matter of understanding the actual words Jesus spoke. Those were understood well enough. It was the spiritual truth at the heart of the parables that was veiled to some.

I agree, but WHY? That is the real question. Jesus tells us the purpose is to prevent their conversion, which would seem to be an impossibility for an unregenerate man (according to Calvinism). Luke's, conclusion is to insist that the proclamation of these veiled truths could regenerate a non-elect individual, which is why God must prevent that from happening by various means (parables being one of them).

Do you agree with his assessment, or not?

 

[MorseOp]

I agree, but WHY? That is the real question. Jesus tells us the purpose is to prevent their conversion, which would seem to be an impossibility for an unregenerate man (according to Calvinism). Luke's, conclusion is to insist that the proclamation of these veiled truths could regenerate a non-elect individual, which is why God must prevent that from happening by various means (parables being one of them).

Do you agree with his assessment, or not?

First, let me say what I am not seeking to oppose Luke without giving him a fair shot to clarify and/or defend his position. I understand that you think he is contradicting the DoG, but in my limited dialog I have yet to see that. That said, let me address your question of "why"?

I do not think the reason for Jesus speaking in parables is difficult to comprehend. Jesus explains His reasoning in Matthew 13:

Matthew 13:11-17

11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should[a] heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Have you heard the silly explanation about when Jesus said, "Lazarus come forth!" that the reason Jesus had to use Lazarus' name is because if He did not that everyone who was in the grave would have risen? It is as though the intent of the Son of God would not have trumped His having to use Lazarus' name. It is the same with Jesus' parables being hidden to the masses. The truth of Romans 1:16, although not yet written, was no less powerful during Christ's earthly ministry. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. Unfortunately the Jewish nation was playing religion. Their ceremonies and cultural attachment to Judaism was all that remained. For that reason the Gospel of the kingdom appeared to them in riddles (parables). It was not because Jesus was afraid that plainly presenting His Gospel to the masses would have resulted in mass conversions, or that (perish the thought) some non-elect person would be inadvertently saved. Jesus was seeking His elect even during His earthly ministry (John 4; John 9). That the Gospel was presented in parables was a general judgment upon apostate Israel. So, to suggest that the reason Jesus spoke in parables was to prevent the non-elect from somehow "slipping though" and believing is nonsense.

 

[psalms109:31]

Deuteronomy 19:
8 If the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as he promised on oath to your ancestors, and gives you the whole land he promised them, 9 because you carefully follow all these laws I command you today—to love the Lord your God and to walk always in obedience to him—then you are to set aside three more cities. 10 Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed.

11 But if out of hate someone lies in wait, assaults and kills a neighbor, and then flees to one of these cities, 12 the killer shall be sent for by the town elders, be brought back from the city, and be handed over to the avenger of blood to die. 13 Show no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.

2 Chronicles 21 :
12 Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the prophet, which said:

“This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: ‘You have not followed the ways of your father Jehoshaphat or of Asa king of Judah. 13 But you have followed the ways of the kings of Israel, and you have led Judah and the people of Jerusalem to prostitute themselves, just as the house of Ahab did. You have also murdered your own brothers, members of your own family, men who were better than you. 14 So now the Lord is about to strike your people, your sons, your wives and everything that is yours, with a heavy blow. 15 You yourself will be very ill with a lingering disease of the bowels, until the disease causes your bowels to come out.’”

John 8 :
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[Or presence. Therefore do what you have heard from the Father.]”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[Some early manuscripts “If you are Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Luke 11:51
from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Matthew 23:37
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

1 Corinthians 1:
19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Isaiah 29 :
13 The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is based on merely human rules they have been taught.[Hebrew; Septuagint They worship me in vain; / their teachings are merely human rules]
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the Lord,
who do their work in darkness and think,
“Who sees us? Who will know?”
16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
“You did not make me”?
Can the pot say to the potter,
“You know nothing”?

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

2 Corinthians 3:
14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

 

[Skandelon]

First, let me say what I am not seeking to oppose Luke...

It was not because Jesus was afraid that plainly presenting His Gospel to the masses would have resulted in mass conversions, or that (perish the thought) some non-elect person would be inadvertently saved. Jesus was seeking His elect even during His earthly ministry (John 4; John 9). That the Gospel was presented in parables was a general judgment upon apostate Israel. So, to suggest that the reason Jesus spoke in parables was to prevent the non-elect from somehow "slipping though" and believing is nonsense.

Well, it appears to me that you have opposed Luke's take...in fact you have 'perished the thought' of it and labeled it 'non-sense,' so I'd like to hear his reply...

As to your take on this passage, how do you explain the phrase, "Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them?" If indeed that is impossible.

 

[MorseOp]

As to your take on this passage, how do you explain the phrase, "Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them?" If indeed that is impossible.

I have no problem with the Lord's words used in that passage. This was an original proclamation of judgment on Israel by Isaiah. Not much had changed in the 600 or so years since Isaiah's time. Jesus wasn't afraid that some non-elect person would believe if their ears an eyes weren't closed. They were incapable of believing anyway because of their systemic unbelief. They already lacked the ability (1 Cor. 2:14). This was simply a republication of the judgment on the nation from the book of Isaiah.

 

[MorseOp]

Well, it appears to me that you have opposed Luke's take...in fact you have 'perished the thought' of it and labeled it 'non-sense,' so I'd like to hear his reply...

As to your take on this passage, how do you explain the phrase, "Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them?" If indeed that is impossible.

I prefer to let Luke speak for himself in this matter. It's only fair.

 

[Skandelon]

I provided Luke's own words for which you to read and respond...

Jesus wasn't afraid that some non-elect person would believe if their ears an eyes weren't closed.

I never suggested he was 'afraid' of it, I simply asserted as the text states, that he is speaking in parable so as to keep them from turning and being healed.

They were incapable of believing anyway

You keep saying that, but the text doesn't support this assertion. Just because you believe they were incapable doesn't negate the FACT that Jesus own words tell us that the parables themselves were being employed so as to prevent their conversion. It is that point you much address in this text. I've shown you in Luke's own words how he deals with it...

They already lacked the ability (1 Cor. 2:14).

This is introducing a new text without address the other. But nevertheless... 1 Cor 2:14 simply tells us that natural men need spiritual discernment, a point with which we can all agree. Now, is that 'discernment' an irresistible change of man's nature and desires as Calvinism presumes upon that text, or could it be that the "brethren" in Corinth, who were "carnal" (ch. 3:1-2) and thus unable to accept the "deep things of the Spirit" (2:10) needed someone like Paul, a Holy Spirit inspired apostle, to explain it (discern it) for them? I believe the context supports the latter as chapter 3 goes on to explain...

Suppose Paul didn't write this letter to the carnal brethren of Corinth. Would they have understood the meat or would they have continued to feed on the milk? Further, suppose Paul used a confusing parable without providing any explanations to these carnal brethren. Would they have understood it? Paul had to discern these truths to them, just as Jesus had to discern the truths behind the parables to His apostles. God uses MEANS to discern his truth...those means are Holy Spirit inspired messengers commissioned to record the very WORDS of God.

It is by those words that we are judged (John 12:48), for his very words are 'spirit and life' (John 6:63) and thus have the power to enable a man to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5; Rom. 1:16).

 

[Luke2427]

I have no problem with the Lord's words used in that passage. This was an original proclamation of judgment on Israel by Isaiah. Not much had changed in the 600 or so years since Isaiah's time. Jesus wasn't afraid that some non-elect person would believe if their ears an eyes weren't closed. They were incapable of believing anyway because of their systemic unbelief. They already lacked the ability (1 Cor. 2:14). This was simply a republication of the judgment on the nation from the book of Isaiah.

What you are not doing is dealing with this phrase- "lest they should be... saved."

 

[MorseOp]

Skan,

One of my favorite Reformed authors wrote:

Cowell misses an important component in story-telling and parables in particular. Story-telling was a commonly used method to convey truth in the ancient world. Parables were an equally common form of story-telling. As we learned previously, Jesus used parables to withhold certain truths, or at least make them more difficult to understand. In Matthew 13:13 Jesus states, “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” This statement was made in the middle of a continuing dialog with the Jews that began in Matthew 12. The Jews were missing the big picture. They were looking for grandiose answers because they had grandiose egos. Instead Jesus answered them with a story in the form of a parable. The substance of this parable was a judgment on the nation, and the ruling Jews in particular. Cowell reduces Jesus’ parables (and in particular Matthew 13:1-23) to an individualistic view. This is at the core of his error. Matthew 13:1-23 is to be understood within Jesus’ condemnation of the ruling Jews.

What he is saying (and I agree) is that Jesus' comment in Matthew 13:13 is a judgment on national Israel because of it's systemic unbelief. Israel as a nation was judged, and as a nation it was prevented from recognizing and embracing it's Messiah. I missed the opportunity to point that out previously. There were individual Jews that came to faith through Jesus' earthly ministry, but that nation was seen as apostate. The author was responding to the notion that Matthew 13 was primarily intended for the individual. He disagrees with that, and I share his opinion.

 

[Skandelon]

What he is saying (and I agree) is that Jesus' comment in Matthew 13:13 is a judgment on national Israel because of it's systemic unbelief. Israel as a nation was judged, and as a nation it was prevented from recognizing and embracing it's Messiah. I missed the opportunity to point that out previously. There were individual Jews that came to faith through Jesus' earthly ministry, but that nation was seen as apostate. The author was responding to the notion that Matthew 13 was primarily intended for the individual. He disagrees with that, and I share his opinion.

The author you quoted, like you, are not addressing this phrase- "lest they should be... saved." (as Luke aptly pointed out)

And I also find it ironic that a Calvinist is insisting that we have overly individualized a text's meaning, when that is the foundation of our argument against Calvinism's hermeneutic in most other texts (i.e. Eph 1.; Rom 9).

I actually agree with the assessment that this passage like Romans 11 (and ch. 9 for that matter) should be understood 'nationally' not individualistically, but as Calvinists like to say, "Nations are made up of individuals," so what applies to the gander must also apply to a goose.

What does that mean? Well if God has hardend/blinded/cut off the nation of Jews then some of those individual Jews must have actually been cut off/hardened. Likewise, if Jesus used parables as judgement against national Israel so as to blind them and prevent them from repentance, then there must be at least one individual Jew who indeed was blinded and prevented from coming to repentance by the means of those parables. Does that make sense?

To insist that God uses parables to blind/cut off/ prevent Israel from salvation while denying that this actually blinds/cuts off/ or prevents any individual Jew from salvation is non-sensical. This is why Calvinism falls apart when you take your hermeneutical approach of Romans 9 regarding those being shown mercy (grafted it) and those being hardened (cut off) and apply it to Romans 11. It doesn't work. My approach, the nationalistic/corporate approach works through the entire passage and produces harmony not confusion.

 

[Herald]

The author you quoted, like you, are not addressing this phrase- "lest they should be... saved." (as Luke aptly pointed out)

I think he is, and I know that I am. "Lest they should" is explained by the intent of the passage. The passage was a judgment on Israel (as previously explained). The nation, as a whole, was prevented from repenting.

And I also find it ironic that a Calvinist is insisting that we have overly individualized a text's meaning, when that is the foundation of our argument against Calvinism's hermeneutic in most other texts (i.e. Eph 1.; Rom 9).

Scripture is not monolithic. When the text is about a a group it is to be taken that way. The same when a text is about an individual.

I actually agree with the assessment that this passage like Romans 11 (and ch. 9 for that matter) should be understood 'nationally' not individualistically, but as Calvinists like to say, "Nations are made up of individuals," so what applies to the gander must also apply to a goose.

If the text supports a certain understanding, then fine. If it doesn't, fine there too. You're also making a caricature of the DoG.

What does that mean? Well if God has hardend/blinded/cut off the nation of Jews then some of those individual Jews must have actually been cut off/hardened. Likewise, if Jesus used parables as judgement against national Israel so as to blind them and prevent them from repentance, then there must be at least one individual Jew who indeed was blinded and prevented from coming to repentance by the means of those parables. Does that make sense?

This isn't that hard to understand. God's judgment was on the nation as an entity, but that did not tie His hands regarding individual election.

To insist that God uses parables to blind/cut off/ prevent Israel from salvation while denying that this actually blinds/cuts off/ or prevents any individual Jew from salvation is non-sensical. This is why Calvinism falls apart when you take your hermeneutical approach of Romans 9 regarding those being shown mercy (grafted it) and those being hardened (cut off) and apply it to Romans 11. It doesn't work. My approach, the nationalistic/corporate approach works through the entire passage and produces harmony not confusion.

Huh? Are you saying the Lord must exclude all Jews from salvation if His judgement is against national Israel (as I have stated)? Romans 11 is clear that Israel has been cut off because of unbelief, but Paul leaves open the door that God can graft them back in. Graft who back in? Those who believe. The nation as a whole may be judged, but God can still extend grace to individuals of that nation. Your hermeneutic is preventing you from accepting this.