Please Explain John 12:37-40

Isaiah 53 is a prophetic book. He is prophesying regarding the rejection of the coming messiah. I don't believe he was speaking of his own rejection. Isaiah was not preaching for converts per se, he was delivering the word of God as given to him to God's chosen people. This makes John correct, the rejection of Jesus was the fulfillment of Is 53.

 

It was a judgment of God due to their unbelief as a Nation at that time and was coming into fruition in the prophetic sense during Johns time. The Jews rejected God as a Nation and therefore they would and did reject Gods Messiah as well. Hey that would be only natural right - reject God you would also have to reject that sames Gods Messiah.
It was Gods judgment on Israel as a Nation by which they would reject Him and that salvation would then go to the world. However Isreal is not set off to the side and discarded as there are multiple prophesies which state they were to be rejected by God but would again at a later time be accepted again (Hos 1 and Rom 10 and 11 of the top of my head). but we know just as Christ stated many Jews came to know Him personally but they did not recieve Him not as a Nation. (John 1:10) But God has stated that Israel will be saved (not every Jewish person but the Jews as as a National body) Something they were not (a Nation) long before Paul spoke of it or even the prophets when Israel no longer was a Nation (that being God saving them as a Nation) and still were not until the 1947. (Not bad for an over 3000 year old prophesy huh?)

 

Good answer, part of accepting God's prophesies is knwing that he is all knowing and knows how man will react. Is it the only choice man has, no. Will he do as God foresaw, yes.

 

Don't forget Pharoah whose heart he hardened. I do believe God sent his Son to save the world, now you are saying contrast this to God's actions here... Good thought, let me stew on it a bit.

 

I found this in Life Application notes which gives something to consider. I still want to stew on the concept of God hardning hearts. I dealt with this a few years back but I can't recall what my critical studies concluded...

HARDENED
People in Jesus' time, like those in the time of Isaiah, would not believe despite the evidence (12:37). As a result, God hardened their hearts. Does that mean God intentionally prevented these people from believing in him? No, he simply confirmed their own choices. After a lifetime of resisting God, they had become so set in their ways that they wouldn't even try to understand Jesus' message. For such people, it is virtually impossible to come to God—their hearts have been permanently hardened. Other instances of hardened hearts because of constant stubbornness are recorded in Exodus 9:12; Romans 1:24-28; and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.
—Life Application Bible Commentary

 

I could be totally off here, and please let me know if I am, but it seems what we have here in a "question" that says Calvinism is really a true doctrine and here is a passage of Scripture that "proves" it now does anyone want to take a crack at disproving it. Right?

I thin Allan had a pretty good explanation, but I don't think it proves Calvinism per se. Hope I was wrong about my assesment.

 

Tom thanks for your clarification on your post and it looks as though I have mis-spoken and offer my apology to you for the wrong assessment.

However, I would say that what is happening is that you are applying passages of Scripture that don't have anything to do with eternal salvation and trying to make them fit into a doctrine of eternal salvation.

The conversion that is being spoken of is not a conversion of going from eternally damned to eternally saved. This passage of Scripture is concerning the offer of Christ's kingdom, which is a separate issue from eternal salvation.

You have eternal salvation and then you have the offer of the kingdom. Calvinism as well as most of non-Calvinism combines these two separate issues. So instead of having apples and oranges you have applanges

So to get a correct read on what is going on we must keep the context of eternal salvation and the context of the kingdom separated as they were intended lest we find at the end of the road an unBiblical doctrine.

Just some thoughts to ponder . . .

 

From Genesis through Revelation we have God commanding all men everywhere to repent and follow Him...but God then goes out of His way to blind and harden those very same people? God says "let us reason together"...but then deliberately "clouds" their understanding? One of the many errors of reformed theology.

 

Granted...but WHY?? God does just up and decide to blind HIS People who are called by His name. Is there a with a reason? When you read you find that they have blinded ALREADY themselves after multiple attempts at drawing them back. This is a judgment due to something they have continuously and consistantly being doing already. In a sense God is giving them over to what they already wanted DESPITE God trying to bring them back unto Himself before He did this.

Granted due to Gods judgment on them after He sent more prophets to them and again as a Nation they would not relent and the very prophetic nature of the Isaiah passage comes into full view in John 12.

Note FIRST please that God did this AFTER their refusal to listen to God pleading with them to turn. God did not blind anyone at the first or before Christs ministry (as no Jews would be saved) but after ward, that they would be sealed in their own choice of unbelief that He was the Christ as a Nation.

And they are if read in context to judgment for unbelief ALREADY.

This is a place both Cals and Non-Cals are somewhat uncomfitable when we hold more to our theology to determine scripture instead of scripture to determine our theology. This is one of those places that brings Mans choice AND Gods Sovereignty into a rare visible view. Mans choice and God Choice rolled into on action cleaved in time.

It does when you understand that God first allowed them to make their choice but did not allow them to repent of that choice made. You could say, they didn't get a second or third chance like many of us do/did as God kept working on our hearts.

 

First let us remember that the effectual feverent prayer of a righteous man (from James 5) deals with "those sick among you" and not praying someone into heaven. But the principle of a righteous mans availing prayers is much the same; and that being - to know the heart, mind, and will of God and move in that direction that their prayers maybe answered according to Gods will.

God gives men the opportunity to hear (via the gospel) or at least know (via creation - person in a distant land - sees there must be more than they know) truth and are responsible for what they do with that truth (ie. believe it or not) - (person in distant land saying there must be more [believes this] and God sends the gospel to him)
How you 'seem' to look at the passages is that it does not matter whether they rebelled or not God did it cause He could.

And He can but God never does anything without a purpose and the scriptures are very plain that the hardening was due to their rejection of God or rebellion towards God and He gave them over as a Nation.

Because this allowed the Gospel to go out to all the world that we might be graphted in. This judgment was for our benifit but was due to THEIR Unbelief ALREADY. Yet God will not leave them (the Nation Israel) but will save them as well. Notice God didn't blind ALL the Jews hearts but that as a Nation, for after the resurrection of Christ there were 120 Jews in the Upper room and then 3000 More Jews were saved and them 5000 more Jews saved. So God did not blind them individually but Nationally to recognize Him. Thousands of Jews were saved in that first 75 years of the Early Church. Do you see what I'm saying here...

No problem that I see so far. raying: :laugh:

 

I think this is where I differ, I don't believe God hardens or blinds them in the since we would use those terms today. I believe the all knowing God knew they would not repent and more or less confirmed their decision in scripture.

I don't believe the Bible has conflicts and hardening their hearts in the since we think of the words today would conflict with;

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I don't know if this is an idiom or what but I don't believe it is as we think today.

 

I agree. The mechanism has been put into humanity by God. All one has to do is ignore their alarm clock a few times when it goes off (instead of getting up), and before you know it you won't hear it anymore...you have "hardened" yourself to the sound, and the physiological and psychological response (instilled from God) to that further "hardens" one to that respnse.

 

All you have to do is do a search for millenial exclusion or kingdom exclusion. He believes the Bible teaches two salvations, one by faith (eternal) and one by works (Millenial Kingdom). The one who is saved by faith can still spend 1000 years in hell paying for their works, and miss out on the MK, only to be restored to Heaven following the 1000 years. I would like to see how this jives with your reformed view

 

I think you enjoy misrepresenting my views? While I will grant you the "name" you have bestowed upon it (it's actually called the gospel of the kingdom or the word of the kingdom - if you want to stick with Biblical names), but you have not represented very well (I would assume, because you still don't understand it, or possibly intentionally, but I hope not) what I and others believe.

There are at least a couple of people that I know that are Calvinistic in their beliefs that still believe in the kingdom.