Is Calvinism's "Total Inability" and Biblical Hardening Compatible?

[Winman]

As I have said many many many many many many many........ times Total Depravity does not teach that man is as evil as he can be. So yes, man can be "devout...." yet not be saved. He does all these things outside of faith in Jesus Christ.

You are missing an important point, God recognized Cornelius's works as righteous works, something Calvinism says an unsaved man cannot possibly do. When the angel appeared to Cornelius he said his prayers and alms had come up for a memorial before God (Acts 10:4).

Cornelius was not regenerated when the angel said this.

 

[JesusFan]

You are missing an important point, God recognized Cornelius's works as righteous works, something Calvinism says an unsaved man cannot possibly do. When the angel appeared to Cornelius he said his prayers and alms had come up for a memorial before God (Acts 10:4).

Cornelius was not regenerated when the angel said this.

God ackwodged that he was a 'God fearing" man that did good works, but NOT that he was rightousness by those works!

same as Noah, found favor in eyes of the Lord, but was NOT rightousness in himself way God requires it!

 

[Winman]

God ackwodged that he was a 'God fearing" man that did good works, but NOT that he was rightousness by those works!

same as Noah, found favor in eyes of the Lord, but was NOT rightousness in himself way God requires it!

Who said that? I have never said that ANY man can be justified by works. Show where I have EVER said that.

This is just another deflection instead of addressing the issue. Calvinism says unregenerate man is incapable of doing truly good or righteous works. But the scriptures show (and say) that Cornelius "worketh righteousness" before he was saved.

Acts 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Peter was directly speaking of Cornelius when he said he feared God and worked righteousness. But Cornelius was not saved when Peter said this, he had not yet told Cornelius the gospel, and Cornelius had not yet received the Spirit.

And Cornelius had FAITH before he heard the gospel and was saved. That is why his works were acceptable with God.

What I am showing is that the scriptures show an unregenerate man able to believe.

 

[Winman]

Peter is another man the scriptures show had faith BEFORE he was regenerated.

Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Peter had faith, the Lord said so. But was he converted? Was he regenerated? No. He was not regenerated until after Jesus rose from the dead and breathed the Holy Spirit upon the disciples.

John 20: 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Peter, nor any of the disciples received the Holy Spirit until AFTER Jesus rose from the dead and breathed on them. But did they believe before this?

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

This was said after Jesus's first miracle of turning water into wine. His disciples believed on him, yet none of them had the Holy Spirit.

 

[Luke2427]

As my understanding of what you believe regarding salvation, that is correct.

From what I understood from your post you believed that God had regenerated him (which precedes salvation), and then when he heard the Word from Peter he was saved. This (the process) is what I have heard from you and almost every Calvinist: that regeneration must precede salvation.

I can't comment on those events. My view is different, as I regard salvation as an event and not a process. There were 3,000 saved instantaneously on the Day of Pentecost. There was no process there. They heard and then they believed or were saved. It wasn't a process.

Every event is the result of processes.

 

[Luke2427]

Peter is another man the scriptures show had faith BEFORE he was regenerated.

Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Peter had faith, the Lord said so. But was he converted? Was he regenerated? No. He was not regenerated until after Jesus rose from the dead and breathed the Holy Spirit upon the disciples.

John 20: 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Peter, nor any of the disciples received the Holy Spirit until AFTER Jesus rose from the dead and breathed on them. But did they believe before this?

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

This was said after Jesus's first miracle of turning water into wine. His disciples believed on him, yet none of them had the Holy Spirit.

As usual not ONE of those verses has a thing to do with what you are purporting.

 

[Winman]

As usual not ONE of those verses a a thing to do with what you are purporting.

What a rebuttal, how scholarly!

Not one word to show how I have misinterpreted scripture, it's just wrong because you say so.

 

[jbh28]

Peter is another man the scriptures show had faith BEFORE he was regenerated.

Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Peter had faith, the Lord said so. But was he converted? Was he regenerated? No. He was not regenerated until after Jesus rose from the dead and breathed the Holy Spirit upon the disciples.

There is nothing in here about Regeneration.

John 20: 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Peter, nor any of the disciples received the Holy Spirit until AFTER Jesus rose from the dead and breathed on them. But did they believe before this?

You can't do this. As I said the other day, the NT Holy Spirit indwelling happens at salvation. Here it hadn't happened yet. Not an example for today.

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

This was said after Jesus's first miracle of turning water into wine. His disciples believed on him, yet none of them had the Holy Spirit.

Again, the NT indwelling of the Holy Spirit is different. Are you implying that NONE of the OT believers were born again?

 

[Winman]

There is nothing in here about Regeneration.

Peter had faith in Jesus before he had the Holy Spirit.

You can't do this. As I said the other day, the NT Holy Spirit indwelling happens at salvation. Here it hadn't happened yet. Not an example for today.

So what? What does it show? It shows people had the ability to believe without the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Again, the NT indwelling of the Holy Spirit is different. Are you implying that NONE of the OT believers were born again?

You are correct, the vast majority of OT saints did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and yet they had the ability to believe.

Let me ask you a question, can a person be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit?

We know from another thread that Cornelius believed in God before he received the Holy Spirit. In fact, the scripture implies he had lived a godly life for many years and was known and repected even by the Jews, not an easy thing to do.

Acts 10:21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

I show you these verses only to show that the scriptures imply Cornelius had been a God-fearing man for years. He was known and respected by all the Jews. This was not some recent event that he believed in God.

Yet we know for a fact he did not have the Holy Spirit.

So how could he believe if a man must be regenerated to believe?

Do you believe like many Calvinists that a man can be regenerated for years before he believes on Christ? From what I have seen from you in the past I do not believe you hold to this.

 

[Luke2427]

You misinterpreted my intent. It wasn't an admission that you have properly represented mainstream views...I know too many mainstream Calvinists who have told me otherwise....plus its obvious to any casual non-biased observer that you are not careful with your terms and explanations regarding these matter, but I'm tired of going over it again and again. BTW...since when did we all vote to make Ware the arbitrator of the mainstream views? Some would call Pink representative of mainstream views, but MacArthur takes issue with his views. Is Ware more in line with Pink or MacArthur? I can't tell based on that one clip.

So, let's move on. I specifically addressed Ware's points...will you?

No informed Calvinist in this country thinks Ware's views on compatabilism is outside the mainstream of Calvinism. And his views are my own.

What this proves is that you do not know what mainstream Calvinism is- at least on this issue and that I am indeed WELL within the mainstream with my compatabalistic views in contradistinction to your claims that I am not.

You having "talked with" people you consider "mainstream" is meaningless evidence to the contrary since you obviously do not know what the mainstream is.

That GOD KILLED CHRIST is mainstream Calvinistic thinking.

Admit that and we can move on to discuss topics rather than me having to defend myself from your ad hominem efforts to marginalize me by painting me outside the mainstream of Calvinism.

 

[Luke2427]

What a rebuttal, how scholarly!

Not one word to show how I have misinterpreted scripture, it's just wrong because you say so.

I didn't have to show it.

You did NO EXPOSITION for me to rebut.

You just copied a bunch of random verses and said "THERE! SEE! I'm right and you're wrong, I'm right and you're wrong, I'm right and you're wrong! Nanny, nanny boo- boo!"

There is nothing in that to rebut.

Tell us WHY you think a verse teaches what you think it teaches THEN we will have something to discuss.

It is foolishness to copy and paste verses and say- There's the PROOF!

It is no proof unless you explain what those verses are saying and how it pertains to this conversation.

It is this silliness that led me to put you on ifgnore for these past few months and apparently I need to do it again.

 

[jbh28]

Let me ask you a question, can a person be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit?

That's what I just asked you. Were the OT saints born again? Remember Jesus and his discussion with Nicodemus? Jesus says you must be born again, yet the indwelling of the Holy Spirit doesn't happen till Acts 2.

Do you believe like many Calvinists that a man can be regenerated for years before he believes on Christ? From what I have seen from you in the past I do not believe you hold to this.

No, no one is regenerated and not have faith.

 

[preacher4truth]

I didn't have to show it.

You did NO EXPOSITION for me to rebut.

You just copied a bunch of random verses and said "THERE! SEE! I'm right and you're wrong, I'm right and you're wrong, I'm right and you're wrong! Nanny, nanny boo- boo!"

There is nothing in that to rebut.

Tell us WHY you think a verse teaches what you think it teaches THEN we will have something to discuss.

It is foolishness to copy and paste verses and say- There's the PROOF!

It is no proof unless you explain what those verses are saying and how it pertains to this conversation.

It is this silliness that led me to put you on ifgnore for these past few months and apparently I need to do it again.

I've stated it numerous times; he knows what Scriptures say, but needs to know what they mean, and he doesn't. He seems to think, (and has recently bragged on here how we should take into account his high regard for the Scriptures) that he has proper interpretations. Well, he doesn't. He is way off track.

His posts are "man! man! man! man! man!" and "ability ability ability!!!!" Sounds like a spot for the Masonic Lodge, Order of DeMolay to me, having come out of that years ago myself.

I won't bother with him any longer Luke2427, I have better things to do with my time, and have pointed out his errors of exalting man too many times to remember.

Time to let him be.

I hope his pastor finds his erroneous views here on BB. He needs to be held accountable for them, he is in grave error.

 

[Winman]

I've stated it numerous times; he knows what Scriptures say, but needs to know what they mean, and he doesn't. He seems to think, (and has recently bragged on here how we should take into account his high regard for the Scriptures) that he has proper interpretations. Well, he doesn't. He is way off track.

His posts are "man! man! man! man! man!" and "ability ability ability!!!!" Sounds like a spot for the Masonic Lodge, Order of DeMolay to me, having come out of that years ago myself.

I won't bother with him any longer Luke2427, I have better things to do with my time, and have pointed out his errors of exalting man too many times to remember.

Time to let him be.

I hope his pastor finds his erroneous views here on BB. He needs to be held accountable for them, he is in grave error.

Where did I err? Did Peter and all of the original apostles except Judas believe on Jesus before he breathed on them and they received the Spirit? Is that true or not?

 

[Skandelon]

No informed Calvinist in this country thinks Ware's views on compatabilism is outside the mainstream of Calvinism. And his views are my own.

That may be true, but your consistency in expressing those views in terms that we all can follow is what is in question.

I agree with the poster who said, "So, we may freely say that God ordains sin, but He doesn't cause it. As one of my seminary professors put it: God stands behind good (ie. is the cause of it) and He stands beside evil (ie. He doesn't cause it, but He chooses not to stop it)."

And the other poster who said...

"One easy way to think about the issue of sin is to say that God will never implicate Himself in causing sin or being sinful. He will allow (permissive will) those creatures who are already predisposed to sin to do what it is that they will do according to their nature. This is fairly clearly spelled out in Romans 1, where the implication is that those who sin are allowed to sin all the more. The damnation is on them, not on God."

Both of them are Calvinistic posters who have taken issue with your use of terminology in the past. I concede that your intent may be closer to the mainstream views than your choice of wording leads one to believe at times...does that help?

That GOD KILLED CHRIST is mainstream Calvinistic thinking.

I address Ware's erroneous conclusions regarding the implications of the direct involvement of God in the redemption of calvary in my last post when I addressed Ware's video. I even started its own thread.

 

[Luke2427]

That may be true, but your consistency in expressing those views in terms that we all can follow is what is in question.

I agree with the poster who said, "So, we may freely say that God ordains sin, but He doesn't cause it. As one of my seminary professors put it: God stands behind good (ie. is the cause of it) and He stands beside evil (ie. He doesn't cause it, but He chooses not to stop it)."

And the other poster who said...

"One easy way to think about the issue of sin is to say that God will never implicate Himself in causing sin or being sinful. He will allow (permissive will) those creatures who are already predisposed to sin to do what it is that they will do according to their nature. This is fairly clearly spelled out in Romans 1, where the implication is that those who sin are allowed to sin all the more. The damnation is on them, not on God."

Both of them are Calvinistic posters who have taken issue with your use of terminology in the past. I concede that your intent may be closer to the mainstream views than your choice of wording leads one to believe at times...does that help?

I address Ware's erroneous conclusions regarding the implications of the direct involvement of God in the redemption of calvary in my last post when I addressed Ware's video. I even started its own thread.

You cannot point out a single word that I employed in these discussions that is not mainstream.

And as for whether or not Ware's statements are erroneous, that is irrelevant at this point. The point is that they are almost identical to mine and they represent the mainstream- not just what I INTENDED to say, but what I ACTUALLY said.

And glfrederick pointed out to you that what I was saying was accurate, though he might have said it differently. So you have no leg to stand on here as you try to marginalize me and isolate me from the mainstream.

The statement I employed that you stated was outside the mainstream was "GOD DID IT". That is the EXACT same language- not just INTENT, but LANGUAGE that mainstream Calvinists use.

You're done, Skan. Stick a fork in you. Just admit it. Be a big man and admit that you were wrong to accuse my language of being outside the mainstream when it is CLEARLY the EXACT language that those in the mainstream of Calvinism have historically employed.

And then be a real big man and admit that you were wrong on this because you didn't really KNOW what the mainstream was.

You would earn a lot of respect if you would just admit these things.

 

[Skandelon]

You cannot point out a single word that I employed in these discussions that is not mainstream.

Answer this for me Luke: Does God genuinely desire for all men to hear the gospel and come to faith?

And as for whether or not Ware's statements are erroneous, that is irrelevant at this point. The point is that they are almost identical to mine and they represent the mainstream- not just what I INTENDED to say, but what I ACTUALLY said.

Ware and you differ on many points even according to your own testimony Luke. We went over that, remember?

The statement I employed that you stated was outside the mainstream was "GOD DID IT". That is the EXACT same language- not just INTENT, but LANGUAGE that mainstream Calvinists use.

That was only the tip of the iceberg regarding all the terms and phraseology you have used Luke...and I've explained countless times how one could say God did something while actually meaning "He permitted and didn't hinder something he had the power to stop" without going into that kind of detail unless pressed to do so. I've pressed you but you won't concede God's permissive decree as described, but insist upon his active agency even in matter of moral evil. I have tried to draw the distinction in his active intervention in such cases as redemption of mankind versus sins like that of Dahmer, yet you seem bent on claiming that God is as active in one as he is the other ("in the same manner"). I honestly think if Ware were here he'd take another approach, but just in case I critiqued his views too, but that goes unanswered...for obvious reasons.

You're done, Skan. Stick a fork in you. Just admit it. Be a big man and admit

Seriously, are you twelve? I have kids that age and they say things like this to each other when they get in a heated discussion but I'd expect a little more maturity from ministers our age, don't you think? Can we move past this kind of rhetoric please?

that you were wrong to accuse my language of being outside the mainstream when it is CLEARLY the EXACT language that those in the mainstream of Calvinism have historically employed.

Provide some written quotes instead of expecting us to wade through watching long clips of debate where the particular point (origin of evil) isn't even being pressed.

You would earn a lot of respect if you would just admit these things.

Not from the few Calvinists who have PM'd me in agreement, I wouldn't. I really don't believe most mainstream scholarly Calvinists would wade out into your territory Luke. I really don't.

 

[DHK]

Every event is the result of processes.

Every event is the result of processes
That is a fairly broad statement.
That doesn't mean salvation is a process. There were 3,000 saved on the Day of Pentecost, and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. From its infancy the Lord was adding daily to the church in Jerusalem. That leaves little room for a process, a progression, etc. It appears that salvation was an event in a person's life, something specific that they could point to--like on the Day of Pentecost, of on the day after the Day of Pentecost."

On the other hand the person who has gone to church for 20 years, sat under the preaching of the word every Sunday, been convicted of the Spirit many times and has resisted the Spirit many times, remains unsaved. (I know such a man). Suppose he does get saved one day. Would you say his salvation was a 20 year process? No. It would be 20 years or more of rebellion against God, and finally an event where he would submit to the authority of God and be saved. We hope that is what happens.

 

[Luke2427]

Answer this for me Luke: Does God genuinely desire for all men to hear the gospel and come to faith?

So you deflect because you CANNOT point out a single phrase that I have employed which you can prove is outside the mainstream.

You just like to make baseless accusations and despise being challenged to support them.

I said, "God DID IT." That's what you're ENTIRE premise that I am outside the mainstream is based on and I have proven to you unequivocally that that statement concerning the affliction of Joseph, Job and Jesus is WELL within the mainstream.

Your Christian duty at this point is to apologize or provide proof for your baseless accusations.

Ware and you differ on many points even according to your own testimony Luke. We went over that, remember

?

Not a single point that we have discussed, Skandelon and you know it.

What we have discussed is the origin of evil and compatabilism and Ware and I are of one mind on those particular matters.

And what's bad about this is that you KNOW it and are being manipulative by pointing out that Ware and I are somewhat different on other issues which have NOTHING at ALL to do with anything you and I have discussed- NOTHING.

That was only the tip of the iceberg regarding all the terms and phraseology you have used Luke...and I've explained countless times how one could say God did something while actually meaning "He permitted and didn't hinder something he had the power to stop" without going into that kind of detail unless pressed to do so. I've pressed you but you won't concede God's permissive decree as described, but insist upon his active agency even in matter of moral evil. I have tried to draw the distinction in his active intervention in such cases as redemption of mankind versus sins like that of Dahmer, yet you seem bent on claiming that God is as active in one as he is the other ("in the same manner"). I honestly think if Ware were here he'd take another approach, but just in case I critiqued his views too, but that goes unanswered...for obvious reasons

.

This is blatanty erroneous.

I have most assuredly over a dozen times explained the orthodox classical Calvinist and mainstream view on the origin of evil and I have proven that it matches my view perfectly.

And you yet again make a baseless accusation- one that I accuse of being a lie- that you will not even attempt to prove.

The statements you keep accusing me of using that you say are outside of the mainstream all have to do with this statement of mine: "God DID IT." which I have proven time and again that it is WELL within the mainstream.

Do you have any other statements, Skandelon??

If not, admit you are lying here and we can move forward.

Not from the few Calvinists who have PM'd me in agreement, I wouldn't. I really don't believe most mainstream scholarly Calvinists would wade out into your territory Luke. I really don't

.

We all get pm's. I will stoop to your level here and tell you that I've received a TON about you and that's a fact. Who cares what you get in your pm?

We don't even know if you are GETTING these pm's unless you provide proof.

I think it is trashy to employ such a tactic in debate.

Facts are facts and they have nothing to do with your pm's for heaven's sake.

The fact is that you did not know what mainstream Calvinism believes concerning the origin of evil and compatabilism or you would not have accused my statements of being outside the mainstream.

And though you did not know it before several of us taught it to you, it did not slow you down one bit from making a baseless accusation. This is one of the reasons I started the thread about the danger of people who speak haphazardly on matters on which they are not properly educated.

So just be a big man, apologize and let's get back to discussing these issues rather than you accusing me of things and me defending myself.

Stick with issues, Skan- that's what you are supposed to do in a debate.

Apologize about your erroneous accusation, learn from your mistakes and debate issues without ignorant, baseless accusations.

 

[Luke2427]

Every event is the result of processes
That is a fairly broad statement.
That doesn't mean salvation is a process. There were 3,000 saved on the Day of Pentecost, and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. From its infancy the Lord was adding daily to the church in Jerusalem. That leaves little room for a process, a progression, etc. It appears that salvation was an event in a person's life, something specific that they could point to--like on the Day of Pentecost, of on the day after the Day of Pentecost."

On the other hand the person who has gone to church for 20 years, sat under the preaching of the word every Sunday, been convicted of the Spirit many times and has resisted the Spirit many times, remains unsaved. (I know such a man). Suppose he does get saved one day. Would you say his salvation was a 20 year process? No. It would be 20 years or more of rebellion against God, and finally an event where he would submit to the authority of God and be saved. We hope that is what happens.

Every event is preceded by a process which led up to it.

It is madness to purport otherwise. Any sane person knows this is so.

Salvation does not occur without the Word of God- you agree on this.

So one of the early steps in the process of salvation is hearing the Word of God.

No salvation takes place apart from regeneration- spiritually dead ears cannot hear what the Spirit says. So that is another step.

Then there is conviction- wherein the sinner is convinced he is sinful and convinced that Jesus Christ is Lord. There is another step in the PROCESS.

Then there is repentance and faith. This is the final step in the PROCESS.

That the actual saving takes place in a moment is inconsequential. I do not deny that. But that the salvation is the result of a beautiful and divine process- NNE HAD BETTER DENY for fear of blasphemy against his Maker.