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

[Robert Snow]

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.

Yea Winman! You either play by Luke's rules or he will punish you. He will ignore you!

I guess this is easier for him to do this rather than admit he has no answer for the verses you posted.

 

[preacher4truth]

Actually Luke2427's reply to winman is correct, winmans pasted verses don't prove a thing, as usual.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

As I explained to you several times, it's also about the INTENT of the one saying "God did it," which is in question and can only be determined when pressed in a discussion or through a direct quote responding to that specific question. As I explained, though we know Satan did the afflicting, Job still addressed God as the afflicter. Even you affirm the use of second/third causes Luke, but you are not careful to employe such explanations when asked. I suspect a scholar such as Ware would be. Knowing a little about Monlina's view of middle knowledge I can guess what Dr. Ware's response might be if asked about what he specifically MEANT by his comment and the origin of Satan's evil intent. Can you?

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.

You conceded that Dr. Ware was an infralapsarian, 4 point Calvinist that supports a concept of Monlina's view of "middle knowledge." What do you think those particular views answer if not the concepts of evil's origin, predestination and Christ's atonement?

As I've said, you've never struck me as one who might support that more philosophical middle ground between Arm and Cals, but that appears to be Ware's camp, though since I haven't read any of his stuff I can't be sure. I'd love to see his actual written quotes on some of these subjects.

This is blatanty erroneous.

Careful, P4T might report you to the admins for using such strong language.

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.

Let's see, which time were you arguing for the mainstream classical view?

1. The time you appealed to mystery as it being impossible to know where Satan's evil intent originated?

or

2. The time you argued that evil, like darkness, doesn't exist and thus dismiss any need to explain the origin of the intent to do evil.

or

3. The time you argued that for God to do "IT" (IT being to originate the intent) is not really evil because He is doing it for a good motive.

or

4. The time you claimed to agree with Edwards and the Arminian divines that God did not hinder the evil, but permitted it for his purpose so that it would certainly come to pass.

or

5. The time you said you agreed with a scholar who supports the compatabilistic framework of a Monlinistic view of middle knowledge. (and just so happens to deny Limited Atonement)

Which one is the mainstream view exactly?

 

[DHK]

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.

Alright, suppose I agree with your order and process. (I don't, but that is another argument). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for this argument.

What is the minimum and maximum time limit for this to take place.
For example, it seems that the people on the Day of Pentecost heard the Word on that day, were convicted on that day and were saved on that day--all during the space of the time it took Peter to preach one sermon. Agreed?

But with Cornelius was the time much greater, and also Lydia?

Can regeneration take place as long as a month before salvation?

What is the maximum time length for this process to occur?

 

[Luke2427]

As I explained to you several times, it's also about the INTENT of the one saying "God did it," which is in question and can only be determined when pressed in a discussion or through a direct quote responding to that specific question. As I explained, though we know Satan did the afflicting, Job still addressed God as the afflicter. Even you affirm the use of second/third causes Luke, but you are not careful to employe such explanations when asked. I suspect a scholar such as Ware would be. Knowing a little about Monlina's view of middle knowledge I can guess what Dr. Ware's response might be if asked about what he specifically MEANT by his comment and the origin of Satan's evil intent. Can you?

I don't have to guess. I put his very words up for you and the whole world to see.

He said exactly, not evenjust similarly, listen to it... E X A C T L Y what I said about it.

This is the fact that you will not face.

You conceded that Dr. Ware was an infralapsarian, 4 point Calvinist that supports a concept of Monlina's view of "middle knowledge." What do you think those particular views answer if not the concepts of evil's origin, predestination and Christ's atonement?

I quoted Ware's own words numerous times saying, listen to it again and see if you can get it this time

E X A C T L Y

what I said.

Those E X A C T same words are the ones that you claimed were outside the mainstream.

As I've said, you've never struck me as one who might support that more philosophical middle ground between Arm and Cals, but that appears to be Ware's camp, though since I haven't read any of his stuff I can't be sure. I'd love to see his actual written quotes on some of these subjects.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't agree with Ware about everything. But oddly enough I disagree with him concerning those points on which HE is outside the mainstream of Calvinism.

This does not help your case.

But on compatabalism, a point in which he is most certainly NOT outside the mainstream- he and I are of one mind.

In fact we say the... wait for it...

E X A C T

same WORDS concerning the matter.

Let's see, which time were you arguing for the mainstream classical view?

1. The time you appealed to mystery as it being impossible to know where Satan's evil intent originated?

Yes.

or

2. The time you argued that evil, like darkness, doesn't exist and thus dismiss any need to explain the origin of the intent to do evil.

Most ASSUREDLY.

This is none other than Augustine's position. It is the oldest known Christian theodicy.

or

3. The time you argued that for God to do "IT" (IT being to originate the intent) is not really evil because He is doing it for a good motive.

Once again E X A C T L Y as Bruce Ware said it.

So, yes, you are steadily proving that you are not as educated on Calvinism as you want people to think.

or

4. The time you claimed to agree with Edwards and the Arminian divines that God did not hinder the evil, but permitted it for his purpose so that it would certainly come to pass.

Yes, but not by bare permission but by- now watch this- what's coming next is the very thing that causes you to tuck your tail and run and deflect like crazy-

by permission but not by JUST bare permission but by his own divine- here it is- PURPOSES.

God permits it and- listen to it now and you will learn something about mainstream historic Calvinism- PURPOSES IT.

or

5. The time you said you agreed with a scholar who supports the compatabilistic framework of a Monlinistic view of middle knowledge. (and just so happens to deny Limited Atonement)

Yes.

Which one is the mainstream view exactly?

Yes, and this is your problem.

This confusion is the very REASON you are an Arminian.

 

[Luke2427]

Alright, suppose I agree with your order and process. (I don't, but that is another argument). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for this argument.

What is the minimum and maximum time limit for this to take place.
For example, it seems that the people on the Day of Pentecost heard the Word on that day, were convicted on that day and were saved on that day--all during the space of the time it took Peter to preach one sermon. Agreed?

But with Cornelius was the time much greater, and also Lydia?

Can regeneration take place as long as a month before salvation?

What is the maximum time length for this process to occur?

There is no biblical time set.

We know that it can take QUITE a while.

One plants and by and by- could be years later, another waters- and by and by- could be YEARS later- God gives the increase.

This is a process.

God can do it in a flash or God can do it over a period of years.

Your Acts 2 passage does not work because these people had the Word of God and it was for THIS VERY REASON that they were AT PENTECOST- TO WORSHIP.

These people could have been awakened spiritually LONG before they heard the words of Peter whereby they were saved.

You don't know, and I don't know.

 

[Luke2427]

Careful, P4T might report you to the admins for using such strong language.

Did YOU of all people just complain about someone being an over zealous post policeman?????????????????????????????????????

Talk about the pot and the kettle !!!!

You are the most reprimanding person in the history of BAPTISTBOARD!

Do you even HAVE a mirror in your life???

 

[DHK]

It's my position that regeneration and salvation must take place at the same time. In your process the working of the Holy Spirit and the hearing of the Word of God can take place for years before that. But if regeneration doesn't take place at the same time one runs into theological problems. What happens if the person dies between being regenerated and salvation?

 

[Luke2427]

It's my position that regeneration and salvation must take place at the same time. In your process the working of the Holy Spirit and the hearing of the Word of God can take place for years before that. But if regeneration doesn't take place at the same time one runs into theological problems. What happens if the person dies between being regenerated and salvation?

If such a thing were possible, he would go to hell.

Whether or not such a thing is possible is a debate for another topic.

Regardless, surely you cannot deny that often it is the case that one plants and another waters, etc... and that this is a PROCESS.

 

[DHK]

If such a thing were possible, he would go to hell.

Whether or not such a thing is possible is a debate for another topic.

Regardless, surely you cannot deny that often it is the case that one plants and another waters, etc... and that this is a PROCESS.

To my knowledge the Calvinist says that regeneration = new birth.
How can a person who is born again go to hell?
How can someone who has been regenerated go to hell?
As I said the two processes must take place simultaneously.

 

[Skandelon]

This is the fact that you will not face.

I took his words head on and you have left them unanswered under the guise of being 'too offended' by my accusation that you sometimes overstep the mainstream Calvinistic view...something even other Calvinists here have pointed out both publicly and privately. Revealing.

I quoted Ware's own words numerous times saying, listen to it again and see if you can get it this time

And I didn't deny that. I replied to it but you keep saying the same thing over and over as if that addresses my argument. Revealing.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't agree with Ware about everything. But oddly enough I disagree with him concerning those points on which HE is outside the mainstream of Calvinism.

Do you know what 'middle knowledge' is and what it is attempting to explain? Study up on that and it may help to see why I find it humorous you are hiding behind Ware on our discussion regarding the origin of evil.

In fact we say the... wait for it...

E X A C T

same WORDS concerning the matter.

:laugh: You do realize that we both read the EXACT same words in scripture yet walk away with differing view, right? Just checking, because infantile statements such as this make me wonder. I think his admitted Molinistic views might actually point to his intent in using those words. Now, if we can only nail you down to your intent.

This is none other than Augustine's position. It is the oldest known Christian theodicy.

That was meant to explain the condition in which evil acts and intents may originate, it doesn't answer the question as to who originated the intent and how. Unless of course you affirm that something (the intent to do evil) originated from nothing.

Yes, but not by bare permission but by- now watch this- what's coming next is the very thing that causes you to tuck your tail and run and deflect like crazy-

by permission but not by JUST bare permission but by his own divine- here it is- PURPOSES.

I've NEVER claimed 'bare permission,' nor does Arminius or the Arminian divines, who've I've quoted to you numerous times. And I've affirmed dozens of times that God permits evil for his Purposes....as did Edwards in the notorious quote you provided. I also affirmed that God permitted evil so that it would certainly come to pass and disposed the events thereunto....as is consistent with Arminianism. I've provided definition after definition explaining the various terms and their possible meanings.

You NEVER appear willing to in any way separate or distinguish God's positive agency in bringing about events such as the redemption of mankind on calvary and events such as Dahmer crimes. That is the problem I address with your view and that expressed by Ware in the clip you provided...you know the one you have ignored?

 

[Luke2427]

To my knowledge the Calvinist says that regeneration = new birth.
How can a person who is born again go to hell?

They can't if being "born again" means what you think it means.

You think it IS salvation- it is the whole of it. You base this on a viewpoint that is very new so far as church history is concerned but old enough for you to have been raised hearing it. So you cannot see being "born again" as anything other than the WHOLE of salvation.

Until you are willing to personally submit that idea to scrutiny you will not see it.

But, btw, no one is saying that a born again person CAN go to hell. If God regenerates a person to the point of the new birth then God finishes that work and saves them eternally. During that time period there is no force in earth or hell that could kill this person. God has determined to save them and they cannot die until God has saved them.

 

[DHK]

But, btw, no one is saying that a born again person CAN go to hell. If God regenerates a person to the point of the new birth then God finishes that work and saves them eternally. During that time period there is no force in earth or hell that could kill this person. God has determined to save them and they cannot die until God has saved them.

This was the answer I was anticipating from the beginning.
It would fit in more with the doctrine of election.

 

[Skandelon]

Did YOU of all people just complain about someone being an over zealous post policeman?????????????????????????????????????

It was more of an inside joke for P4T. When being called out for his many personal attacks the only one he could produce from me was that I called his post "blatantly false."

You both tend to get a little personal in your discussions.

 

[Luke2427]

I took his words head on and you have left them unanswered under the guise of being 'too offended' by my accusation that you sometimes overstep the mainstream Calvinistic view...something even other Calvinists here have pointed out both publicly and privately.

I have never seen someone who deflects as much as you do.

The fact of the matter is that six months ago I said, "God DID IT".

You said that's outside the mainstream.

I proved it is not.

You lose. Whether you are too prideful to admit that or not is irrelevant.

Facts are facts.

Do you know what 'middle knowledge' is and what it is attempting to explain? Study up on that and it may help to see why I find it humorous you are hiding behind Ware on our discussion regarding the origin of evil.

Yes, I do know what Molinistic Middle Knowledge is.

And if I was totally IGNORANT on the matter I would STILL know more about than you know about Calvinism.

Something you keep making clear over and over again.

:laugh: You do realize that we both read the EXACT same words in scripture yet walk away with differing view, right? Just checking, because infantile statements such as this make me wonder. I think his admitted Molinistic views might actually point to his intent in using those words. Now, if we can only nail you down to your intent.

"infantile?"

Do you not think that is insulting? I don't care, mind you, but you forfeit your right ethically to be Mister BB policeman when you are snotty and insulting and breaking the same rules you burden others with.

His molinism has nothing to do with the fact that he is a thorough compatabilist.

This is your problem Skandelon.

I bet in your mind you have NEVER lost a debate in your whole life.

Not on anything that matters at all to you.

And I'll tell you why I say that. You can take EXTRAORDINARILY CLEAR words that refute your position. like the words of Ware and Edwards and spin them, only to your own satisfaction, to sound like they support YOU.

But the only ones you are fooling are the blind few and yourself.

NOBODY with half a brain could watch that clip of Ware and say that his view is different from mine on compatabilism.

Yet you do. But for you, it is not that you don't have half a brain- it is that you subconsciously cannot bear to lose or think that your position has been decimated.

But it has. Denial may help you deal with it- but it doesn't change the facts about it.

I've NEVER claimed 'bare permission,' nor does Arminius or the Arminian divines, who've I've quoted to you numerous times. And I've affirmed dozens of times that God permits evil for his Purposes....

But what you lack the courage to do is admit the reverse- that God purposes all the evil that ever exists to exist.

What you lack the courage to confirm is that God purposes that men not get saved and that those men go to hell.

You are in a catch 22 on this matter.

You know on the one hand that if you say that God did not purpose for billions to be saved and that God did NOT purpose that they go to hell- then you undermine the eternal purposes of God and purport that God's eternal purposes can be thwarted.

On the other hand, you know if you admit that God purposes that men not get saved and that those men go to hell then you will reveal to those without a theology that you are DIAMETRICALLY opposed to their way of thinking.

You don't want to face the isolation so you deflect. It is what you do the most of anyone I have ever seen.

 

[Luke2427]

It was more of an inside joke for P4T. When being called out for his many personal attacks the only one he could produce from me was that I called his post "blatantly false."

You both tend to get a little personal in your discussions.

I find you incorrigible and this comment infantile.

And that's just what I have seen you use in the last five minutes.

And the worst I have EVER seen is your dishonest brackets.

That was the most dishonest thing I have seen on bb- ever.

So I think, once again, the best investment you could make at this point in your life is a mirror- or maybe a beam remover for your own eye.

If you want us not to be personal- then lead the way.

 

[Skandelon]

I find you incorrigible and this comment infantile.

You can address comments and views as being "infantile" without personally attacking an individual (i.e. "you are a liar" "you are a baby" etc)

And to call someone "incapable of being corrected" when countless attempts to correct them has been fruitless is more of an observation than an attack. But point taken. I'll try to be even LESS abrasive.

And the worst I have EVER seen is your dishonest brackets.

That was the most dishonest thing I have seen on bb- ever.

As explained numerous times, brackets like those [] are commonly used to reference the topic. You know full well that the topic of IT was DEEDs seen as being "EVIL" (as Dahmer's crimes and what you called the greatest "EVIL" to ever take place..."the cross" were being compared) And I DID include your caveat regarding how when God does "IT" for the right motive, then "IT is not evil," so lets not go there AGAIN.

So I think, once again, the best investment you could make at this point in your life is a mirror- or maybe a beam remover for your own eye.

See, now that is personal...

If you want us not to be personal- then lead the way.

I'm trying. How many times have I referred you to the arguments about the issues raised in Ware's video clip when you keep going back to this act of being so overly offended to continue because I've called you out for overstepping mainstream Calvinistic views...as if most people hear don't know that already.

Did you even refer to yourself as a "high Calvinist" at one point? Even that admission proves at least your tendency to go beyond what some Calvinists like MacArthur might argue, right? Can't we at least acknowledge that much?

 

[Skandelon]

I have never seen someone who deflects as much as you do.

The fact of the matter is that six months ago I said, "God DID IT".

You said that's outside the mainstream.

I proved it is not.

It was more that that Luke. I've explained that one can say that God killed Job's kids but really mean that he permitted Satan to kill them, but just not say that clearly. We only really know when we press them on their intent.

In our discussion we originally talked about Dahmer's intent to do evil, remember? You argued that if God would kill his own Son, which is a MUCH greater evil than Dahmer's crimes then that would somehow prove God's active determination of both of these events "in like manner." I address that conclusion and you have yet to answer it.

I'll keep reminding you of that fact until you do. Here it is again:

I found it interesting that he points to the redemption through Christ's crucifixion and to the inspiration of scripture as proofs that God ALWAYS works in this manner to bring about His desired outcome.

At the end he appears to think he has the libertarians by the throat when he declares that for God to have divinly inspired scripture under our system he must have just gotten "lucky." Laughter and applause follow as the speaker and apparently many in the audience reveal their own lack of knowledge regarding what libertarians actually believe on this subject.

What Bruce failed to recognize is that Libertarians don't deny that God does at times throughout history intervene to effectuate His desired outcome. And that He may do so through causally determined means such as a Compatabilist might describe (i.e. the use of appointed circumstances, sinful agents, second causes and the like). But those are unique examples of God's positive agency as he actively intervenes to DO something. That is what uniquely makes the scripture "divinely inspired" after all. If God causally determines all things in like manner then what is "divine" about the inspiration of scripture? How is scripture effectuated by God any differently than other Christian books if indeed God has actively determined all things in like manner? Such a view only undermines the uniqueness of God's ACTIVE work and inspiration.

You make the same error as your mentor, Luke. When the example of Dahmer was raised you pointed back to the Cross as being "the worse sin of all time" in hopes that if you can somehow prove God to be the "doer" of the deed in that case, then it would justify His being the "doer" of the deed in every case, even the most heinous ones, such as Dahmers.

So, while Libertarians might agree that God DID actively intervene to ensure the crucifixion of his Son (through second causes as a Compatibist would describe) in order to bring about the redemption of mankind, that in no way proves or even implies He likewise actively intervenes to ensure the molestation of a five year old girl for no more apparent reason than to gratify the sick lusts of a murdering heathen.

THIS is why I press you to carefully choose your words and explain your intent. It is most certainly justifiable for God to actively intervene to ensure redemption (while doing so through second causes etc to ensure his holiness isn't compromised), but to PRESUME that justifies and proves that God likewise brings about every sinful deed in a similar manner is baseless and completely unbiblical. God doesn't even TEMPT men to sin, yet your system has God not only casually determining the tempter, but actively determining the nature of the one tempted so that when he sins he could not willingly do otherwise. That is where you err.

Oh, and when did we vote a Molinistic four point Calvinistic compatiblist to be the representative for all mainstream Calvinistic scholars? :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

It was more of an inside joke for P4T. When being called out for his many personal attacks the only one he could produce from me was that I called his post "blatantly false."

You both tend to get a little personal in your discussions.

No need for your pejoratives. You get quite personal and seem angry often.

Also, its not true that that was all I could produce. You produce enough on yourself. And unlike yourself I don't follow you around and dogg yours steps with all of them.

Always bringing up the past, slandering me again Skan? Who is that akin to?

 

[preacher4truth]

I find you incorrigible and this comment infantile.

And that's just what I have seen you use in the last five minutes.

And the worst I have EVER seen is your dishonest brackets.

That was the most dishonest thing I have seen on bb- ever.

So I think, once again, the best investment you could make at this point in your life is a mirror- or maybe a beam remover for your own eye.

If you want us not to be personal- then lead the way.

Amen.

Amazing how he attempts to contrue himself differently in his own mind, all the while slandering me, with his personal attacks, while calling it a joke?

Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death, So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "Was I not joking?" Proverbs 26:18-19