I think you may have misunderstood. I wasn't attempting to deny the conversion of many Jews following the ascension of Christ and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. I was speaking about the common, and widely accepted doctrine of Israel's judicial hardening, where by God was blinding the Jews ('spirit of stupor' etc) while grafting in the Gentiles.
That more detailed explanation I'll agree with.
As Paul explains the Jews (generally speaking) were stumbling over and rejecting Christ, while the Jews were (generally speaking) were accepting Christ...."What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." (which yes, is where I got my name)
Again, we're on the same page here.
Well, I believe if you really understood scholarly Arminians views in regard to election, hardening and salvation you would conclude differently. This is just my attempt to help you see things from our perspective. I sometimes do that by trying to point out those things in which we really do have in common but are often accused of not having in common. (i.e. "all men deserve hell," "God is sovereign over all things," "God can and does effectually change the will of man to accomplish His purpose.")
You, like others who have a position apart from the one I hold seem to think that I've not spent much time examining the opposing view, for I've not been swayed to join forces, and implied is, "If I had truly understood that position, I would have surely changed my mind..." I reject that sort of thinking. I've read and well understand the position of Arminianism. In fact, I've been using a similar point in several debate threads here, that the two positions are not at all that far apart, and that God's sovereignty is necessary to both Arminianism and Calvinism. Is is the extent and timing of that sovereignty, coupled with the idea that God responds in a synergistic way versus wills in a monergistic way that separates the two doctrines.
I may be one of the rare individuals who have actually read the works of Jacob Arminius. But, at the end of the day, I find him unconvincing, and even without the benefit of Calvin, from the Scriptures, I would have argued against his position much like happened at the Synod of Dort.
What "extent" of what I said isn't true according to Calvinism or you personally?
I believe that I already explained my "extent" in the post where I responded to you. But to recapitulate, I suggested that God did still reveal Himself to us in various means, and while faith is a very critical aspect, it is not, as is often pressed by Arminians, the sole arbiter of what causes God to react. Hence my "to an extent" comment. To reiterate, you need God to respond to human faith in order to make your doctrine work. I do not. Without God's response to human faith, Arminian doctrine falls flat and it is not much more than softened Calvinism.
Is it God's previnient grace as or is it the human faith that God sees then acts upon to dispense that grace? Can't have it both ways, and it isn't both ways in Scripture.
Either of us can google the topic and find countless such proofs supporting both sides and certainly I could point you to a few with which best represents my personal views, but what interests me is that you didn't actually address the argument I already presented, but instead deferred the conversation to put a burden on me to supply a full exegesis to support my views. We can go there eventually, but let's first deal with the critique and argument I already submitted, okay?
I well understand that we can do a search and find arguments. I'm asking YOU to back up your position on human libertarian freedom,that you clearly presented, with Scriptural exposition. If you can, you may be one of the first to do so successfully.
