I believe TULIP

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Because they have already made their choices God would not be unjust in allowing them to die in that hardened state. What made them hardened in the first place is as you said, their sinful rebellion. God is patient with them, but he is not required to be patient until they die, if he so desires He can hardened them by his will in order to accomplish a purpose through them.

I thought we were talking about the hardening of Israel and that God had done this so they would not believe in Christ and etc. </font>[/QUOTE]I am. I'm sorry I've explained this several times on other threads so sometimes I assume that everyone is following. I believe that the bible teaches that we can hardened ourselves by our own choices. We can see a warning against this in Heb. 3 for example. But the Bible also teaches us about a hardening by God's will.

I believe that the Israelites were first hardened by their own will and rebellion. God "longed to gather them" and he "held out his hands to them" but they refused to obey thus they become "self hardened." God had a plan to bring redemption through these people even in the midst of their hardened rebellion, so he sealed them in their hardenness by his divine hardening so that none of the miracles and other revelations of God could break their orginal self-hardening. Why?

1. Someone had to crucify Christ.
2. They had to be hardened for the ingrafting of the Gentiles. Who, by their belief, would provoke the Israelites to envy so that they too might believe and be saved.

So, go back to Pharoah as a model. He was self hardened in that he didn't want to let the Israelites go. This was completely an act of his will that made him set or hardened in that decision. God's plan was to reveal his power and glory through the plagues, but these powerful displays of God's power were sure to convince anyone, even a self hardened Pharoah, to submit if left to their own reason, thus he was hardened in his will by God. So, he was given "a spirit of stupor" so that he couldn't reason and let the people go before God was finished displaying his power through all the plagues. If you read through the story you can see that Pharoah had decided to let God's people go a time or two but God hardens him so as to accomplish his purpose.

Its much the same with the Israelites. They have already rebelled against God. God chose to harden them in that rebellion in order to use them to accomplish a divine purpose. Why did God have to harden them if they were already self hardened? Apparantly, Christ's miracles and teachings could gave opened their eyes had God not hardened them by his sovereign will thus leaving no one to accomplish his purpose on the cross.

This is why God told his disciples to keep things quite until the right time and he veiled his teachings in parables, he didn't want people to start believing yet because he needed them to crucify him. Now, it just doesn't make sense for Jesus to veil the gospel and tell his Apostles to keep in quite if everyone is born unable to believe without the Spirit. There wouldn't have been any reason to keep it quite, they could believe it unless God granted it to them to believe anyway so why keep it quite. The only reason would be to prevent people from believing in Him until the right time, which makes no since if Calvinism is true.

 

[Frogman]

This is why God told his disciples to keep things quite until the right time and he veiled his teachings in parables, he didn't want people to start believing yet because he needed them to crucify him. Now, it just doesn't make sense for Jesus to veil the gospel and tell his Apostles to keep in quite if everyone is born unable to believe without the Spirit. There wouldn't have been any reason to keep it quite, they could believe it unless God granted it to them to believe anyway so why keep it quite. The only reason would be to prevent people from believing in Him until the right time, which makes no since if Calvinism is true.

This scenario makes perfect sense in line with your (2) articles found in the previous post. Still, we now live under Grace. Thus I am convinced that, even from your discussion, the depravity of man is exemplified. First, the man hardens himself? From what source does this hardening come? The goodness of man? no, the depravity, blindness, and spiritual death of man, whatever you call it, the result is the same.

God has chosen Israel to reveal His Son and the Redeemer of man to the world, but all nations are produced as a result of the sons of Noah who did know the miracles of God personally. Then Romans 1 supports this depravity in that man has not kept God in his remembrance and then God does give them up to a reprobate mind.

The explanation you offer of Christ's veiling the truth is not wholly unacceptable (that makes you feel better doesn't it? Just think, Bro. Dallas partially agrees lol). However, If Israel had been walking by the spirit as Anna and Simeon were these things would not have been accomplished. We are left to believe then the elect (remnant of Israel did beleive, why, because these belong to God and are given to Christ), there is no place in scripture which states anything different to be true of Gentiles. They are blinded (nationally) though throughout Biblical history we find those who are of the elect coming to the God of the Jew.

Your belief is interesting and well thought out, but I do not believe is supported by the whole of Scripture.

[added]
This view causes conflict, if we hold that all of Israel was hardened. This hardening was accomplished nationally, but not necessarily or always individually as is shown in Simeon and Anna and others. It is this view of yours that carries its own weight and burden to be shown by scripture.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ March 21, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Thus I am convinced that, even from your discussion, the depravity of man is exemplified. First, the man hardens himself? From what source does this hardening come? The goodness of man? no, the depravity, blindness, and spiritual death of man, whatever you call it, the result is the same.

Yes, hardening is a result of the sin nature or depravity if you'd rather, but my point is man doesn't start hardened, he becomes that way. Therefore he doesn't start unable to see, hear, understand and be converted; he becomes that way. That is a significant step away from Total Depravity as taught by Calvinism.

This is why Jesus condemns the Pharisees:

Mt 23:15
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are!

How do you make someone more "fit for hell." You hardened them with false security by making them believe that salvation comes through the works of the law and self righteousness. The most difficult people to witness to are people who are set in their false beliefs. Why? They have made up their minds, they are hardened.

Let me give you an example:

I met and spoke with a young lady several months ago in a library who has never really had any religious influences and has not really ever "rebelled" from God, because she really didn't know much about Him. She believed that God "probably" existed but she was not fimilar enough with scripture to really even know the gospel. I told her the gospel message. She wept and later that day asked Christ to save her soul. She was a sinner, no doubt, and she needed a savior, but I don't believe she was hardened. She didn't have all the baggage that so many others I have come in contact with have.

I remember in College witnessing to a Muslim and seeing his head continually shake in disagreement as I spoke to him about Christ. By the end of our conversation he was much less disagreeable but I remember he said to me, "I couldn't believe this even if I wanted to. My family and all my friends would completely disown me." He left unchange (as far as I know). He was hardened by false beliefs. Does that mean he couldn't believe? No, not unless God sovereignly decided to hardened him in his decision in order to accomplish his purpose through him. What could possibly break his hardened heart. The gospel, the call of the HS, envy, love of believers, prayer, the fear of wrath, hardships, tragedy and a host of other things that provoke the will of man.

The explanation you offer of Christ's veiling the truth is not wholly unacceptable (that makes you feel better doesn't it? Just think, Bro. Dallas partially agrees lol).

Yes, but what part do you disagree with? How do you explain why God veils the gospel if no one can believe it apart from God's allowing it anyway?

We are left to believe then the elect (remnant of Israel did beleive, why, because these belong to God and are given to Christ), there is no place in scripture which states anything different to be true of Gentiles. They are blinded (nationally) though throughout Biblical history we find those who are of the elect coming to the God of the Jew.

Actually Dallas this is what I hung on to as my defense against this view when I was a Calvinist and I think its Calvinism's strongest argument against this view, however the reason I couldn't continue to hold to this view is:

The bible does state things are different for the Gentiles.

"The Gentiles will listen" as opposed to the Israelites who "are hearing but never perceiving."

The Israelites are being Sovereignly hardened as God gives them a Spirit of Stupor, while none the less "grafting in the Gentiles." How is that not different? One group is being nationally hardened while the other group is being nationally grafted in.

2. The only reason stated in scripture that certain people cannot believe is in regard to this hardening as seen in John 12:37-41. The direct reason that these people cannot believe in Christ is because God gave them hardened hearts. Nothing like that is spoken of in regard to the Gentiles. You argue that their is a "remnant" of the Gentiles just like there is a "remnant" of the Israelites, but scripture never says that. The remnant of Israel were the first to trust in Christ and were those who ushered in the gospel of faith to the world, that is unique and divine and only should be applied universally if clearly taught in the text, I had to reluctantly admit that it is not thus leading me to abandon my Calvinism. (which is VERY difficult to do, especially when your as "hardened" as I was in that system

)

Your belief is interesting and well thought out, but I do not believe is supported by the whole of Scripture.

I don't mean to patronize or speak down to you in anyway, but I honestly believe that if you continue to honestly deal with the "WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE" you will eventually believe otherwise. Of course, I could be wrong, I have been before.

This view causes conflict, if we hold that all of Israel was hardened. This hardening was accomplished nationally, but not necessarily or always individually as is shown in Simeon and Anna and others. It is this view of yours that carries its own weight and burden to be shown by scripture.

I don't believe that "all of Israel" was hardened. The remnant were not.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Bro. Bill

I remember in College witnessing to a Muslim and seeing his head continually shake in disagreement as I spoke to him about Christ. By the end of our conversation he was much less disagreeable but I remember he said to me, "I couldn't believe this even if I wanted to. My family and all my friends would completely disown me." He left unchange (as far as I know). He was hardened by false beliefs. Does that mean he couldn't believe? No, not unless God sovereignly decided to hardened him in his decision in order to accomplish his purpose through him. What could possibly break his hardened heart. The gospel, the call of the HS, envy, love of believers, prayer, the fear of wrath, hardships, tragedy and a host of other things that provoke the will of man.

I think it is significant you yet do not place the working of the Holy Spirit after the breaking of man's will. However we may determine what is meant by 'provoking' the will of man, it remains this is accomplished only through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Unless I am terribly mistaken, I believe we really agree on this.

Man is a reactionary creature. We work first to sustain survival, then for a comfortable life style reasonably provided for our families, perhaps there is nothing man is engaged in apart from his previously being provoked to that activity. One who is attending upon the things of God, even prior to salvation, then becomes one who is drawn by the Holy Spirit.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Man is a reactionary creature.

You believe this yet teach that man is only able to react in one way when confronted by the gospel. How can that be?

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
Man is a reactionary creature.

You believe this yet teach that man is only able to react in one way when confronted by the gospel. How can that be? </font>[/QUOTE]In the lost position man sees nothing to act upon, when moved upon by the Holy Spirit effectually man imagines he has acted to believe in Christ. In truth, those who are lost and elected stand in an eternal position and view of God the Father as being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Those who are not elected and we also may view the unsaved as having chosen because of one or the other reason however, they react only upon their depraved nature and this continually separates them from God.

Bro. Dallas

 

[romanbear]

Hi Hardsheller;
A quote from you;
--------------------------

You ain't a Baptist!
--------------------------
Where in the world did you ever get the idea that all Baptist are Calvinist?
Romanbear

 

[romanbear]

Hi Matthew;

A quote from you;
---------------------------------
Q. What about predestination? God has already selected the ones He wants to be saved so He predestinates them to be saved. Doesn't the Bible say that God predestinates people?
---------------------------------
Actually No. The Bible never clearly says that people are predestined to be saved, or sent to Hell.
Romanbear

 

[Frogman]

It does say that people are predestinated to conform to the image of Christ. To me this is the same as saying that they are predestinated to be saved, they certainly cannot conform to this image apart from salvation.

Bro. Dallas

 

[romanbear]

Hi Frogman;
once we are saved we are all predestine to conform to Christ likeness. If we are truly saved.
But no where does it say we are predestine to be saved,or elected to be saved
Romanbear

 

[Frogman]

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
Man is a reactionary creature.

You believe this yet teach that man is only able to react in one way when confronted by the gospel. How can that be? </font>[/QUOTE]In the lost position man sees nothing to act upon, when moved upon by the Holy Spirit effectually man imagines he has acted to believe in Christ. In truth, those who are lost and elected stand in an eternal position and view of God the Father as being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Those who are not elected and we also may view the unsaved as having chosen because of one or the other reason however, they react only upon their depraved nature and this continually separates them from God.
</font>[/QUOTE]Dallas,

Let me ask you a question. Israel was God's chosen (or elect) nation, right? Yet, we know that not everyone in Israel was saved, right? We also know that God elected to share the message of repentance with Ninevah, yet they ended up rejecting the message, right?

Elected or chosen, simply means those whom God has chosen to give or present something to. He chose to reveal himself and work through the Israelite nation, thus they were elect. That doesn't necessitate their salvation any more that God's desire for all to be saved necessitates that everyone will be saved.

God obviously, even by Calvinistic beliefs, CHOSE or elected to share the gospel message with the world. Before Christ that was limited to the elect nation of Israel. So, we could rightly say that the world is elect, because they, like Israel in the OT, have been chosen to hear the word of the Lord, which is offered to "whosoever" and "any one who" throughout the scripture. The world has been elected to hear the message. Out of that world there were individuals who are elected to carry that message by God inspiration, they were called apostles. I also imagine that God will choose particular people through the course of history to fulfill certain tasks who might also be refered to as being"elect," or "chosen by God."

In Romans 9 when Paul says, "in order that God's purpose in election might stand," what purpose was he speaking about? I think it was the purpose of bringing salvation by the blood of Christ to the world through the nation of Israel. The nation was elected for the purpose of accomplishing redemption for the world and that purpose was fulfilled through them in three ways, (1) genelogy of Jesus, (2) their hardening and (3) their proclaimation of the gospel. Some of them were hardened and some of them became apostles. Out of the same lump of Clay, as Paul explains, came vessels used for honor and others used for common use.

It just seems to me that you apply the term "elect" to a group of elite people when in fact since Christ's work everyone has been chosen to hear the message.

 

[Frogman]

Let me ask you a question. Israel was God's chosen (or elect) nation, right? Yet, we know that not everyone in Israel was saved, right? We also know that God elected to share the message of repentance with Ninevah, yet they ended up rejecting the message, right?

This is three questions

You said all that to ask me if I am an elitist? And this from a brother who counts the elect to be only those with a prophecy or ushering the church age?

I believe all who shall be saved had their names written in the Lamb's book of Life by the hand of God in eternity past. I do not believe I know who these elect are, but I do not believe God is afraid one of them will die before they are reached by the Holy Spirit. If you believe man must choose to believe in Christ, you can not really say you have this confidence. You may argue that you have it, but I won't believe you have it.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
And this from a brother who counts the elect to be only those with a prophecy or ushering the church age?

Did you even read my post. Yes I believe the Apostles were elected to a unique task and divinly equipped to carry it out. But that whole last post that you ignored was explaining that I believe everyone has been chosen (or elected) to hear the gospel, which was unique to the elect nation of Israel before Christ's coming. Anyone who is invited has in a sense been elected to come. Who is invited?

Everyone!

Calvinists apply the term "elect" to exclusively mean those who are saved. But God choses people for various tasks, both common and noble.

For example, Pharoah was elected by God.

I can hear the gasps of disbelieve.

But hear me out. He was elected (chosen by God) to be hardened for the purpose displaying his power and purpose to the world through the plagues on Egypt.

Calvinists take this simple term "elect" as if its a word only used to discribe those who will be saved. I don't agree.

God chose prophets, priests, kings, apostles, and even those who he would hardened to fulfill a purpose such as Judas. He also chose Israel to be the line of Christ and the nation who would introduce redemption to the world through the words of the prophets and apostles. He chose the nations (Gentiles) to hear this message of faith and repentance, and in that sense everyone has been chosen. Everyone is elect when it comes to the hearing of the gospel. Though I do believe that some are elected (chosen by God) to carry out unique tasks within God's sovereign will.

 

[Frogman]

yeah I read the entire post.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
yeah I read the entire post.

Then why did you write: And this from a brother who counts the elect to be only those with a prophecy or ushering the church age?

I don't "count the elect to be only those with a prophecy or ushering the church age."

I've fully explained what I believe about elect but it seems like you don't understand. Are you just not wanting to spend the time to formulate a argument or are you really just not understanding me?

 

[Frogman]

Can you stand on your position and deny that it is teaching that 'elitist' position you accuse Calvinism of? I don't think you can brother. I believe in one of your early posts here on the board someone summarized your position as I have and you affirmed their summarization.

I don't have that post handy but I will look for it if you wish, and if it is not there I will apologize for my error.

Otherwise, when you teach that there is a group who were elected for specific tasks, while all others are required to choose from their free-will, I do not believe I have misrepresented the presentation of your position you have provided.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Can you stand on your position and deny that it is teaching that 'elitist' position you accuse Calvinism of? I don't think you can brother.

My "elitist" position is only one of our two system that claims that the "elite" are actually elite. You make the apostles just like the rest of Christianity and I don't agree with that.

Do you not believe that the divine messagers of God are "elite?"

1. They learned directly from God Incarnate
2. They were the first to trust in Christ
3. They were appointed as divine messagers
4. They were inspired in their preaching and their writings
5. God revealed to them the mysteries of the kingdom
6. They were granted unique and supernatural abilities

You wouldn't call these people elite in comparison to the rest of Christians? Of course you would say they are elite, meaning set apart for a speacial purpose, and so do educated Arminians. Paul is not like you and I regardless of what you or anyone else might claim. Yes, it can be argued that he was Sovereignly saved in the same manner that we were, but I don't see that supported in the text.

Otherwise, when you teach that there is a group who were elected for specific tasks, while all others are required to choose from their free-will, I do not believe I have misrepresented the presentation of your position you have provided.

I do believe that those who were the first to present the message to the world were elected for that specific task and supernaturally gifted in accomplishing that task. Do you disagree?

I believe that those who hear their message were not Sovereignly willed to respond for or against that message but that it was left to their own consideration.

For example, Jonah was sovereignly appointed to preach to Ninevah but Ninevah was not sovereignly appointed to respond in one way are another. That is clear in the text.

I believe the apostles were elected to there position of apostleship by God and I believe the world was elected to hear their message. Therefore my "elitist" view doesn't in anyway afford the complaints that Calvinism affords.

 

[Frogman]

For example, Jonah was sovereignly appointed to preach to Ninevah but Ninevah was not sovereignly appointed to respond in one way are another. That is clear in the text.

That is clear in the mind of Jonah, which assumed because Ninevah is a Gentile nation God would not save them.

In the purpose of God it is clear that God's Sovereignty is the factor that Armenians and others deny is what is at work.

Thus salvation is not determinate upon man's choice, but always and in every situation founded upon the Will and Purpose of God.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:

For example, Jonah was sovereignly appointed to preach to Ninevah but Ninevah was not sovereignly appointed to respond in one way are another. That is clear in the text.

Posted by Frogman
[qb]That is clear in the mind of Jonah, which assumed because Ninevah is a Gentile nation God would not save them.

No, Jonah didn't want them to hear the message because he didn't want them to repent and be saved. He hated Ninevah. Jonah didn't want to preach to Ninevah because he was afraid they would believe and God would save them. If Jonah were a Calvinist he would have said, "Ok, I go to Ninevah because God's going to save them or pass over them regardless of what I do anyway." He didn't see it that way. He thought that if he could avoid preaching the message that he might prevent Ninevah's repentance.