Please Explain John 12:37-40

[webdog]

Instead of stating I misrepresented what you believe, be more specific. Two salvations? Faith and works? True believers being cast into hell? What?

 

[J. Jump]

Instead of stating I misrepresented what you believe, be more specific.

Why? Will you actually factually represent what I and others believe from now on?

You have misrepresented at least me in your statements of two salvations, salvation by works, paying for their works and being restored to Heaven.

 

[Tom Butler]

Guys, I guess I'm dense. We all agree that God can and does blind and harden.

You say it is the result of their persistent sinfulness. In one instance, God simply confirms their unbelief. In another, God, at some point, does not allow them to repent of their unbelief.

But God neither confirms unbelief nor prevents repentance of unbelief in every instance. Heaven is full of people who were rebellious sinners, yet God was patient with them, continuing to woo them, convict them, etc., until they repented.

All of us believers are grateful to God for his patience with us, for we deserved exactly the same thing as those whom God has given over to their sin.

So what made the difference? Or, to quote I Corinthians 4:7 "Who maketh the to differ from another? What has thou that thou didst not receive?...."

Forget the Cal/non-Cal arguments. It comes down to the question, on what basis did God extend mercy to some (us, for instance) and cut off others from any possibility that they would/could repent?

 

[Amy.G]

Forget the Cal/non-Cal arguments. It comes down to the question, on what basis did God extend mercy to some (us, for instance) and cut off others from any possibility that they would/could repent?

Well, I don't know what "ism" this makes me, but I believe that God is not hindered by time as we know it and that He sees through all eternity and knows beforehand who will receive Him and who won't. Those that won't He uses for His divine purposes. Like Pharoah.

 

[LeBuick]

Heaven is full of people who were rebellious sinners, yet God was patient with them, continuing to woo them, convict them, etc., until they repented.

Correct, but the operative is the past tense word "were" meaning they did repent while there was time. Good way to put it.

 

[Allan]

You say it is the result of their persistent sinfulness. In one instance, God simply confirms their unbelief. In another, God, at some point, does not allow them to repent of their unbelief.

But God neither confirms unbelief nor prevents repentance of unbelief in every instance. Heaven is full of people who were rebellious sinners, yet God was patient with them, continuing to woo them, convict them, etc., until they repented.

All of us believers are grateful to God for his patience with us, for we deserved exactly the same thing as those whom God has given over to their sin.

So what made the difference? Or, to quote I Corinthians 4:7 "Who maketh the to differ from another? What has thou that thou didst not receive?...."

Forget the Cal/non-Cal arguments. It comes down to the question, on what basis did God extend mercy to some (us, for instance) and cut off others from any possibility that they would/could repent?

Tom,
First off, you are intentionally trying to bring this to a C/NC debate. I have been on Calvinistic boards in multiples discussions for about a year now. One thing I see ALL THE TIME are a couple of questions that Calvinists are shown or trained in their learning designed to TRY to show the flaws in Non-Cal Theology. One of those questions is this one you ask...almost verbatum:

So what made the difference? Or, to quote I Corinthians 4:7 "Who maketh the to differ from another? What has thou that thou didst not receive?....on what basis did God extend mercy to some (us, for instance) and cut off others from any possibility that they would/could repent?

But I will answer your question.

First let us deal with the scripture you gave of I Cor 4:7. But in order to understand vs 7 you HAVE to take the context of verse 6 and 8 in the very least.

6 and these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
7 Foe who maketh they to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not recieve? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we might also reign with you.

Please note this is in absolutely NO WAY speaking of those who are saved and those Not. Nor is it refering to how they came unto salvation. This is Paul giving a light rebuke against their superior attitude and self exalted pride believing they were better than others in the their own church and even than even the apostles.
It is asking the BELIEVER "what makes you so much more special than other believers? What did you recieve that they did not?? And if you recieved it why are you boasting or exalting yourself above YOUR BRETHREN.
They were bragging in the Church about who their teachers were (Paul or Apollus) they were bragging because the had great knowledge AND they were braggin because some had manifested the gift of tongues. But at NO time were they disputing who's salvation was better than others.

Now to the question you asked:

on what basis did God extend mercy to some and cut off others from any possibility that they would/could repent?

On the basis of belief. God has made Man responsible with what He does with truth - Believe it or Not! The Jews in CHrists time were blinded ALREADY due to unbelief and the condition FOR Gods JUDGMENT (you keep forgeting or over looking this apart) on Israel due to their unbelief already as a Nation. The NATION was not permitted to see and know the Messiah yet but not individuals but the whole. This is why we see in the scriptures thousands of Jews saved after the assention of Christ.

Actually God does confirm unbelief in every instance, at death. For they are sealed in their trespasses and sins.

You seem to fail to see that they were blinded as a Nation not to see Christ but as Individuals they could. If the Jews were looking for their National figurehead and leader they would not be able to see that in the Christ before them. But if they were looking for the Christ that was to redeem them, THEN THAT CHRIST was who they would see. It was much like why many don't see Christ as their saviour today. It depends on what they are looking to Him for. They may know He can save them from their sins but they may not want to be saved from their good times or what they think shouldn't be sin. They will not see that in the Christ before them. They had the truth but they rejected what they didn't want and so reject Christ as well. We must accept and believe ALL of Christ that All that is OF Christ may save us. :thumbsup:

 

[Tom Butler]

Well, I don't know what "ism" this makes me, but I believe that God is not hindered by time as we know it and that He sees through all eternity and knows beforehand who will receive Him and who won't. Those that won't He uses for His divine purposes. Like Pharoah.

I understand your point. It's the classic non-Cal view of election and predestination. And yes, God does use unbelievers for His divine purposes.

If that is the case, what then is the purpose of blinding and hardening folks who are not going to believe anyway?

 

[Tom Butler]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Heaven is full of people who were rebellious sinners, yet God was patient with them, continuing to woo them, convict them, etc., until they repented.

Correct, but the operative is the past tense word "were" meaning they did repent while there was time. Good way to put it.

But for those whom God judicially blinded and hardened because of their persistent unbelief, is it not a sovereign decision by God as to when their time was up? Can we in our finite minds determine what was the last straw for them, but not for those of us who did repent?

 

[Tom Butler]

First let us deal with the scripture you gave of I Cor 4:7. But in order to understand vs 7 you HAVE to take the context of verse 6 and 8 in the very least.

Please note this is in absolutely NO WAY speaking of those who are saved and those Not. Nor is it refering to how they came unto salvation. This is Paul giving a light rebuke against their superior attitude and self exalted pride believing they were better than others in the their own church and even than even the apostles.

Now to the question you asked:

On the basis of belief. God has made Man responsible with what He does with truth - Believe it or Not! The Jews in CHrists time were blinded ALREADY due to unbelief and the condition FOR Gods JUDGMENT (you keep forgeting or over looking this apart) on Israel due to their unbelief already as a Nation. The NATION was not permitted to see and know the Messiah yet but not individuals but the whole. This is why we see in the scriptures thousands of Jews saved after the assention of Christ.

Actually God does confirm unbelief in every instance, at death. For they are sealed in their trespasses and sins.
:thumbsup:

Allan, I have shortened your comments to what I see as your essential comments. If folks want to see your entire post, they can go back to it.

I've deliberately tried to avoid making this a Cal/non-Cal debate, and focus on the blinding and hardening question.

As to the context of I Cor 4:6-8, your point is well taken, that it is dealing with superior attitude, etc. However, that is a principle here that extends beyond the context. It is that all we have is a gift from God. That includes the gift of salvation. It is something that we have no cause to boast about. The question Paul asked is not, what is the difference. It is, who makes you different?

This principle also applies to the blinding and hardening of the Jews as a nation. You hold that they are responsible for their own blinding and hardening, and that the difference between those folks and the Jews who believed is that one group believed, the other did not.

But the principle Paul espoused leads to my view that it is God who makes the difference between the two groups, believers and unbelievers.

We, of course, differ about this, but it does explain our starting points and how we got to where we are on this issue.

 

[Amy.G]

I understand your point. It's the classic non-Cal view of election and predestination. And yes, God does use unbelievers for His divine purposes.

If that is the case, what then is the purpose of blinding and hardening folks who are not going to believe anyway?

I think blinding and hardening takes unbelief a step further. I think there can be different degrees of hardness. Just a thought though, because I probably will never be able to understand God's purposes and the intricate details of them until we're face to face.

 

[webdog]

Why? Will you actually factually represent what I and others believe from now on?

You have misrepresented at least me in your statements of two salvations, salvation by works, paying for their works and being restored to Heaven.

Since you will not state what I misrepresented, I take it this is nothing but trying to cloud others' minds to the false doctrine ME really is. I stand by what I said, as I am familiar with this doctrine.

 

[Blammo]

Romans 11:25-32 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Is the answer within these verses? Was the purpose of the blindness to bring the offer of salvation to all men? (" ... that he might have mercy upon all.")?

 

[J. Jump]

Since you will not state what I misrepresented, I take it this is nothing but trying to cloud others' minds to the false doctrine ME really is. I stand by what I said, as I am familiar with this doctrine.

Webdog I did tell you what you said was inaccurate. I don't have to fix your mistakes for you ie giving you every little detail. Like I said if I explain it to you "again" does that mean you are going to represent our views accurately from this point forward?

You can think the doctrine is false if you want to, but to dilberately misrepresent the facts of what one believes and then say "I am familiar with this doctrine" is not truthful. You may be familiar with the term and that there are people that believe in this doctrine, but you are not familiar with what the doctrine actually teaches.

So this is not an attempt to cloud others' minds as they are more than welcome to ask questions of me and I suspect any of the other brothers that are kingdom believers. I have offered on several ocassions to send people study material, so I don't think I'm trying to hide anything or to cloud anyone's understanding.

You are inaccurate in your representations of the doctrine and now your misrepresentations are leading into false accusations, but that is pretty typical.

If anyone wants to know what the gospel of the kingdom is all about they are more than welcome to PM me or email me and I would be more than happy to share with them.

However I'm not into catering to critics who do not have any desire to understand.

 

[webdog]

Webdog I did tell you what you said was inaccurate. I don't have to fix your mistakes for you ie giving you every little detail. Like I said if I explain it to you "again" does that mean you are going to represent our views accurately from this point forward?

You can think the doctrine is false if you want to, but to dilberately misrepresent the facts of what one believes and then say "I am familiar with this doctrine" is not truthful. You may be familiar with the term and that there are people that believe in this doctrine, but you are not familiar with what the doctrine actually teaches.

So this is not an attempt to cloud others' minds as they are more than welcome to ask questions of me and I suspect any of the other brothers that are kingdom believers. I have offered on several ocassions to send people study material, so I don't think I'm trying to hide anything or to cloud anyone's understanding.

You are inaccurate in your representations of the doctrine and now your misrepresentations are leading into false accusations, but that is pretty typical.

If anyone wants to know what the gospel of the kingdom is all about they are more than welcome to PM me or email me and I would be more than happy to share with them.

However I'm not into catering to critics who do not have any desire to understand.

This is an explanation of how I "misrepresented" what you believe...

You have misrepresented at least me in your statements of two salvations, salvation by works, paying for their works and being restored to Heaven.

Sorry, but I don't see any explanation there. I have discussed this with you on other threads dealing with this issue solely, and if what I said misrepresents what you believed, it should be easy to point it out point blank instead of beating aroung the bush.

I think it's rather comical you call it the "gospel (good news) of the Kingdom" when you have separation of true believers and Christ for a thousand years. Kind of oxymoronish (if that's a word).

 

[J. Jump]

Sorry, but I don't see any explanation there.

Your are right, because I don't owe you an explanation. Why don't you answer the question I've asked at least three times now? You keep crying for an explanation, but you won't answer my question. If I explain to you how you misrepresented my views are you going to represent them truthfully in the future?

And since these things have already been "explained" to you and you still do not represent them in a correct manner, why should I trust you even if you say yes.

it should be easy to point it out point blank instead of beating aroung the bush.

You're exactly right. So go back and re-read the threads and figure it out. I'm not beating around the bush. Let me state it again.

If anyone wants to know what the gospel of the kingdom is all about they are more than welcome to PM me or email me and I would be more than happy to share with them.

However I'm not into catering to critics who do not have any desire to understand.

I think it's rather comical you call it the "gospel (good news) of the Kingdom" when you have separation of true believers and Christ for a thousand years. Kind of oxymoronish (if that's a word).

Actually it's what Scripture calls it. And to know that we can have a position within the kingdom of The King is more than good news it's awesome news! Why would you think it is anything other than that?

 

[webdog]

Your are right, because I don't owe you an explanation.

You are right. You don't owe me an explanation...but don't say you supplied one, either.

Why don't you answer the question I've asked at least three times now? You keep crying for an explanation, but you won't answer my question.

I'm having a hard time following your circular conversations. Your question of whether I will represent what you say truthfully depends on what explanation of mistruth you claim I misrepresented. How can I answer?

Actually it's what Scripture calls it. And to know that we can have a position within the kingdom of The King is more than good news it's awesome news! Why would you think it is anything other than that?

Scripture does call it the Gospel, but it is your version of that Gospel that is an oxymoron. Who are the "we" I highlighted?

 

[J. Jump]

You are right. You don't owe me an explanation...but don't say you supplied one, either.

I never told you that I was explaining why your statements where inaccurate. I just told you which ones were.

I'm having a hard time following your circular conversations. Your question of whether I will represent what you say truthfully depends on what explanation of mistruth you claim I misrepresented. How can I answer?

Webdog I'm sure you are a smart guy. This isn't difficult. It's rather a simple question actually.

How can you answer it? Well it would go something like this . . . I apologize for misrepresenting your views. While I don't agree with you I do want to represent what you believe accurately. And if you will share with me what you do believe and how I have misrepresented you I will make sure that with any future references I will represent your views accurately.

Then my question of why should I believe you this time, because it has already been explained to you once would go something like this . . . I know I have misrepresented your views in the past and apparantely I did not fully understand what you were saying. But now I have a better grasp at what you are saying, so I will represent your views accurately in the future. Please accept my apology.

See there it isn't that difficult at all.

Scripture does call it the Gospel, but it is your version of that Gospel that is an oxymoron.

So Scripture is an oxymoron? All I have done is repeat what Scripture says, so if you think I have displayed something that is oxymoronical then you are saying the same of Scripture.

Who are the "we" I highlighted?

Webdog why do you and others like you always harp on having things explained to you when you've already said that you don't agree. Is answering the "who is the we" question the question that going to make you a believer?

 

[webdog]

Webdog I'm sure you are a smart guy. This isn't difficult. It's rather a simple question actually.

Not too smart, but I'm always trying to learn

How can you answer it? Well it would go something like this . . . I apologize for misrepresenting your views.

...and if I don't know how...what is there to apologize for

While I don't agree with you I do want to represent what you believe accurately. And if you will share with me what you do believe and how I have misrepresented you I will make sure that with any future references I will represent your views accurately.

Hence the reason I asked how I misrepresented you. You have shared what you believed in the past...numerous times...and I feel I represented the ME doctrine accurately. Please, quit playing games and beating around the bush.

So Scripture is an oxymoron? All I have done is repeat what Scripture says, so if you think I have displayed something that is oxymoronical then you are saying the same of Scripture.

Stawman. What did I say?

Scripture does call it the Gospel, but it is your version of that Gospel that is an oxymoron.

Is answering the "who is the we" question the question that going to make you a believer?

You answered it without trying
The "we" are believers.

 

[MB]

Hi Blammo;

Romans 11:25-32 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Is the answer within these verses? Was the purpose of the blindness to bring the offer of salvation to all men? (" ... that he might have mercy upon all.")?

Finally the correct answer. I agree Scripture supports it's self.
MB

 

[ituttut]

Romans 11:25-32 (snipped)

Have been reading through, and see webdog having an understanding, and find you put before us the answer.

For understanding we must remember what God had hidden. God from the beginning planned on having mercy and grace also on the Gentile dogs. Did Israel not have to stubble before Damascus Road could happen? There was no place for the Gentile, other than to serve the Jew forever, remaining as heathen. We are to be eternally grateful to Abram, and Abraham's seed through Isaac, and Jacob.

God is dealing individually with us today, for the "nation of Israel was blinded, and as such the nation has be cut-off...for now. The Kingdom was at "hand" for their taking. They did "stubble" allowing we Gentile's to be justified through the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And until the rapture the Jew can be saved just as we into the "Body Church" entrance being gained through faith. This was impossible before Damascus Road for only the "Kingdom Church" was available to man. All from the beginning were justified by faith, but now "justified through" Jesus Christ. "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began", II Timothy 1:9.