The doctrine of Hardening

[The Biblicist]

Well, you said all those not yet hardened were subject to possible salvation, so I assumed that included everyone...and not everyone in your system is 'subject to salvation...

The case of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unmistakenly clear. However, all others, have you ever heard me claim that I know who is the elect and who is not? Do you really expect me to make that decision when it is above my pay grade???????? That would require omnscience.

Bro, don't take it this way... I'm asking a clarifying question about your answer as it relates within your system. You don't need to be quite so accusatory and defensive...remember, pretend we are sitting across from each other at starbucks. You'd be kind to me there, so be kind here...and don't read a nefarious intent into everything.

If we were sitting across from each other in Starbucks I would hope you would not take my words and interpret them negatively and in such a way to build your own arguments???

 

[Skandelon]

The case of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unmistakenly clear. However, all others, have you ever heard me claim that I know who is the elect and who is not? Do you really expect me to make that decision when it is above my pay grade???????? That would require omnscience.

I wasn't meaning to imply you knew which ones were or weren't, I was just asking about your presumption that all others would be subject to salvation, because for a majority of them it wouldn't be possible given the fact that they aren't enabled...yet you appeared to be listing everyone not hardened as 'subject to salvation.' But I get what you are saying now. You are saying those who commit the unpardonable sin prove themselves to be 'non-elect' and the rest, though they may or may not be elect, are possibly going to be effectually called.

I've actually known people who have denied the HS and one youth I knew even took the 'blasphemy dare' where kids would purposefully blaspheme the HS to mock God. He later become a Christian and now is a pastor...a Calvinistic one ironically enough.

If we were sitting across from each other in Starbucks I would hope you would not take my words and interpret them negatively and in such a way to build your own arguments???

We both use each other words brother...you use mine and in that other thread you really painted my view in a very negative and confounding light... but when you read a nefarious intent into my words, instead of trying to understand my perspective things go down hill.

 

[The Biblicist]

I wasn't meaning to imply you knew which ones were or weren't, I was just asking about your presumption that all others would be subject to salvation, because for a majority of them it wouldn't be possible given the fact that they aren't enabled...yet you appeared to be listing everyone not hardened as 'subject to salvation.' But I get what you are saying now. You are saying those who commit the unpardonable sin prove themselves to be 'non-elect' and the rest, though they may or may not be elect, are possibly going to be effectually called.

No you were not! Look at your question again! You know what I believe in regard to election and yet you asked a question that was intentionally worded to contradict what you knew I believed. There simply was logical basis in your question unless I had stated that only non-elect commit the unpardonable sin. I never said that! I never suggest that those who do not commit the unpardonable sin were either all elect or all non-elect. That was entirely your presumption.

I've actually known people who have denied the HS and one youth I knew even took the 'blasphemy dare' where kids would purposefully blaspheme the HS to mock God. He later become a Christian and now is a pastor...a Calvinistic one ironically enough.

That is why the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit requries:

1. Light in the MIND
2. Hatred/malice in the heart
3. Intentional accusation of the HOly Spirit's works to the devil.

Your view of this sin does not fit these requirements and yes, I can provide contextual based evidence in Matthew 12 for each one.

We both use each other words brother...you use mine and in that other thread you really painted my view in a very negative and confounding light... but when you read a nefarious intent into my words, instead of trying to understand my perspective things go down hill.

Ok, I cannot deny that. We both need to improve in that area.

 

[Protestant]

You seem to presume that because the light of law hardens man, that the light of grace will NECESSARILY have the same effect.

It will have the same effect unless efficacious, irresistible grace is given to man by the power of God.

We know this is true because grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

He came to His own and His own killed Him.

Conclusion: Men, by nature, hate grace and truth because they hate God.

They hated Him in the OT.

They hated Him in the NT.

They hate Him today.

There is nothing new under the sun.

But suppose that the nature of grace actually ENABLES responsibility

Suppositions do not truth make.

The nature of biblical grace is that which is the power of God unto salvation freely given to those whom the Lord will have mercy.

Biblical grace actually saves men to the uttermost.

Man, by nature, is the walking dead, un-able to do anything spiritually good.

God is not in the business of helping those who can help themselves as you Arminians teach.

Rather He is in the business of supernaturally and miraculously making alive in Christ that which was dead, damned and absolutely helpless.

 

[Skandelon]

Men, by nature, hate grace and truth because they hate God.

Where does scripture say this because in my experience (which I know is not authoritative), I grew up learning about God and very grateful for His grace, because no matter how many promises I made I never could seem to keep them...and I need his mercy ever morning. I have LOVED the message of grace and forgiveness ever since I can remember. Now, the idea of trying to keep the law, or merit salvation, I could see how that would frustrate or exasperate me and make me an enemy, but the gospel is good news. My kids have responded similarly.

They hated Him in the OT.

They hated Him in the NT.

Who is they? Because I read about a lot of faithful people (great cloud of witnesses) who were sinners, but forgiven...and loved the truth of God's grace. I think we disagree as to why some believe and others do not.

 

[The Biblicist]

Where does scripture say this (Rom. 8:7)

Who is they?.

All men in their fallen state - Rom. 8:8

 

[BobRyan]

4. Every cognant fallen member of the human race is in the process of hardening.

Only if they are living in determined rebellion against God.

Not all do that.

And the very fact that hardening exists shows that the starting point is not "fully hardened".

A dead man cannot harden himself further.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Only if they are living in determined rebellion against God.

Not all do that.

And the very fact that hardening exists shows that the starting point is not "fully hardened".

A dead man cannot harden himself further.

in Christ,

Bob

So then your suggesting that man can reverse the hardening of his own volition.

 

[The Biblicist]

Only if they are living in determined rebellion against God.

Go learn about the nature of sin as it is sin to "come short" which is passive not determinate in nature.

 

[Skandelon]

Where does scripture say this (Rom. 8:7)

Nope, I read it again and it says nothing about mankind hating grace and truth. It says the sinful mind is hostile and can't submit to the law, but nothing is mentioned about grace, gospel, or inability of mankind to respond when confronted with the Holy Spirit wrought truth of God. That is all stuff you impose onto the text in order to support your premise.

All men in their fallen state - Rom. 8:8

There are different kinds of people in their fallen state. For instance, there are those who have not been exposed to the light of the gospel and those who have. If you believe, as I do, that the truth of the gospel is indeed all that scripture says that it is (powerful, piercing to the soul, life-changing), then that fact actually makes a difference.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nope, I read it again and it says nothing about mankind hating grace and truth. It says the sinful mind is hostile and can't submit to the law, but nothing is mentioned about grace, gospel, or inability of mankind to respond when confronted with the Holy Spirit wrought truth of God. That is all stuff you impose onto the text in order to support your premise.

Then why is it that only those "in the Spirit" are characterize by all those things (Rom. 8:9-39) and yet those "in the flesh" are not characterized by any of these same things anywhere in God's word but are characateried by the very opposite things to grace and truth (works of the flesh) rather than fruts of the Spirit. Your response is irrational as well as unbiblical as you are demanding the fruits of the Spirit can be attributed to those "in the flesh."

If you believe, as I do, that the truth of the gospel is indeed all that scripture says that it is (powerful, piercing to the soul, life-changing), then that fact actually makes a difference.

This is the very center of our disagreement so how can you seriously even include me in your erroneous position????

1 Thessalonians explcitly states that the gospel comes to some "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" but surely you can see it does not come to all that way?? Neither does it come to all "in power or in the Spirit" any more than it comes to all "in much assurance." It is obvious it comes to many "in word only" and this is a complete repudiation of your whole system.

 

[Skandelon]

Your response is irrational as well as unbiblical as you are demanding the fruits of the Spirit can be attributed to those "in the flesh."

This assumes that the 'fruit' has to be an effectual work of an indwelling spirit, verses a response to the spirit...a 'response' we are ultimately held 'responsible' to for as if we don't respond we will perish.

This is the very center of our disagreement so how can you seriously even include me in your erroneous position????

Oh, so you deny that the truth of the gospel is indeed all that scripture says that it is (powerful, piercing to the soul, life-changing)??? Interesting. I imagine there are some notable Calvinists who would take you to task on that view, but to each his own.

1 Thessalonians explcitly states that the gospel comes to some "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" but surely you can see it does not come to all that way??

I don't blame the response of some men to gospel on a lack of enabling power in the gospel, that would give them an excuse for their choice to 'trade the truth in for lies.' I believe me are actually responsible for their rejection of the gospel, whereas you apparently believe the gospel is just not sufficient to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent...to enable all who hear it to come.

 

[The Biblicist]

This assumes that the 'fruit' has to be an effectual work of an indwelling spirit, verses a response to the spirit...a 'response' we are ultimately held 'responsible' to for as if we don't respond we will perish.

The flesh cannot respond by something foreign to its nature and yet that is the substance of your argument.

hh, so you deny that the truth of the gospel is indeed all that scripture says that it is (powerful, piercing to the soul, life-changing)???

It never ever says that! It says it is the power "OF GOD" not of men! It says the Word of God - meaning the living incarnate Word is omniscient where nothing is hidden from HIS sight not the written word of God. You need to interpret Heb. 4:12 in context.

I don't blame the response of some men .

1 Thes. 1:4-5 is not speaking of how men respond to the gospel but how the gospel CAME to men. Big difference! Your interpretation is rediculous as that kind of logic and interpretation would require "in POWER" to be the response of men "in the holy Spirit" to be the response of men equally as "in much assurance" to be the response of men. That is absurd. It is how the gospel COMES TO man that distinguishs the elect from the non-elect.

Moreover, Paul is providing evidence concerning how they can "know" they are the elect (v. 4).

 

[Skandelon]

The flesh cannot respond by something foreign to its nature and yet that is the substance of your argument.

My argument is that the flesh is enabled to respond to whatever God wants the flesh to be enabled to respond to....and every note worthy Christian scholar throughout history has affirmed that God treats or holds men RESPONSE-ABLE to the gospel appeal. There is no biblical reason to believe we are not response enabled to that which God holds us ultimately responsible....and for which we will be judged and ultimately perish if we reject.

It never ever says that! It says it is the power "OF GOD" not of men!

How does this address my words, "So you deny that the truth of the gospel is indeed all that scripture says that it is (powerful, piercing to the soul, life-changing)???"

The gospel is the POWER OF GOD. The gospel is the means through which God's power enables response.

It says the Word of God - meaning the living incarnate Word is omniscient where nothing is hidden from HIS sight not the written word of God.

You are arguing either/or, I'm arguing both/and. The scripture and the proclaimed gospel IS A WORK OF GOD. God works THROUGH his chosen means, and the written/spoken truth are those chosen means.

Moreover, Paul is providing evidence concerning how they can "know" they are the elect (v. 4).

Right. And Paul, the Jewish apostles to the Gentiles, is spending most of his time fighting Judizers or those who reject Gentiles all together as not being 'chosen of God.' Thus, for Paul to argue that they too are 'chosen of God' makes perfect sense in that context, but that's from the corporate perspective, not the exclusive individualize perspective of western thought.

 

[The Biblicist]

My argument is that the flesh is enabled to respond to whatever God wants the flesh to be enabled to respond to

If that had any truth to it there would be absolutely no need of any NEW CREATURE or a CREATIVE act or a NEW HEART as the old heart can just be enabled to do whatever God wanted it to do. However, that is not the teaching of Romans 7:14-25 or 8:7-8. The fallen nature is no more saved now than it was before the creative act of God. The flesh no more submits now to God any more than before the NEW CREATURE was created.

....and every note worthy Christian scholar throughout history has affirmed that God treats or holds men RESPONSE-ABLE to the gospel appeal.

You know that is not true in the sense you define "response-able" according to its etymological root meaning. They used the term in a completely different sense. They did not use the term "response-ability" or having ability to respond but used it in the sense of obligated to respond.

Your usage is like demanding the English term "housewife" be understood as "hussy" as that is its etymoligical meaning.

There is no biblical reason to believe

.

No reason you want to acknowledge! However, there is plenty of Biblical support to believe it as "no man can come unto me" is a universal declaration of inability without which no exception clause would be even necessary to be stated if it were not universally true.

How does this address my words, "So you deny that the truth of the gospel is indeed all that scripture says that it is (powerful, piercing to the soul, life-changing)???"

Because the scripture nowhere claims the gospel or the scriptures have any inherent power to do anything except in direct connection with God Himself where the power solely resides. The fact that the gospel does not come to all "IN much assurance" any more than "IN power" or "IN the Holy Spirit" does not refer to the response of men but HOW the gospel comes to only the elect (1 Thes. 1:4).

The gospel is the means through which God's power enables response.

What response? There is no need for the gospel to enable a negative response! You really believe any other response is only POTENTIAL. So why play these little word games? huh? To the elect (1 Thes. 1:4) the gospel always comes "IN power" and "IN the Holy Spirit" and "IN much assurance" but never comes this way in "word only" (1 Thes. 1:5).

You are arguing either/or, I'm arguing both/and.

And your argument is simple to disprove as the gospel does not COME to all "IN power" any more than "IN much assurance." This is about HOW IT COMES not HOW IT IS RECEIVED by men. The written word of God is violated every day but when the word of command comes directly from the Person of God it never comes back a disappointment to God but always accomplihses the purpose of God's design.

The scripture and the proclaimed gospel IS A WORK OF GOD.

No one is disputing its SOURCE or CONTENT to be of God. No one is disputing that preaching the gospel is SENT by God and thus preachers are doing the work of God by proclaiming the gospel to men. So in these senses the scriptures and preaching the gospel is the work of God. However, in regard to the heart of men this is a work of God without any instrumentality at all, as the preacher can only bring the gospel to the mind but God alone can give a heart to receive it.

This is the major probelm with decisionalism as they attempt to play the role only the Holy Spirit can play and pressuring people to make a decision and defining that as salvation.

God works THROUGH his chosen means, and the written/spoken truth are those chosen means.

God works through his chosen means in preaching the gospel equally to condemn as to save and both are sweet savors to God:

15 For we are to God a sweet smell of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the smell of death to death; and to the other the smell of life to life.

Right. And Paul, the Jewish apostles to the Gentiles, is spending most of his time fighting Judizers or those who reject Gentiles all together as not being 'chosen of God.' Thus, for Paul to argue that they too are 'chosen of God' makes perfect sense in that context, but that's from the corporate perspective, not the exclusive individualize perspective of western thought.

First, there is no such thing as corporate salvation as salvation is an individaul experience, just as there is no such thing as the gospel coming "in much assurance" to a corporate entity as "assurance" by its very nature is personal and individual.

The gospel coming in "much assurance" is not a corporate experience but an individual experience.

 

[Skandelon]

If that had any truth to it there would be absolutely no need of any NEW CREATURE or a CREATIVE act or a NEW HEART as the old heart can just be enabled to do whatever God wanted it to do. However, that is not the teaching of Romans 7:14-25 or 8:7-8. The fallen nature is no more saved now than it was before the creative act of God. The flesh no more submits now to God any more than before the NEW CREATURE was created.

So, in this text:

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.​

Why was the Lord grieved that he had made man? And why did he find favor with Noah? Did God effectually give Noah a new heart making him favorable? If so, why didn't God simply make the people do what he desired them to do so as not to be grieved by them? The answer is RESPONSIBILITY.

You know that is not true in the sense you define "response-able" according to its etymological root meaning. They used the term in a completely different sense. They did not use the term "response-ability" or having ability to respond but used it in the sense of obligated to respond.

Ok, I'll use your definition. God treats us as if we are 'obligated to respond' thus strongly implying the ability to do that which he obligates, especially in light of the FACT that we will be held accountable for that response with eternal damnation.

 

[Protestant]

Originally Posted by Protestant

Men, by nature, hate grace and truth because they hate God.

Where does scripture say this

Scripture states this truth several ways.

The historic record expresses this truth through numerous examples:

- in the Garden by the disobedience of Adam.

- in the Great Flood by the disobedience of mankind.

- throughout pagan history by the worshiping of false gods.

- in the centuries of disobedience by Israel and her kings.

- and ultimately in the crucifixion of Christ, the Son of God, the greatest example of the evil of which man is capable.

The prophetic Word foretold the martyrdom of the Apostles and millions of saints throughout Church history.

This prophecy has been fulfilled as historic fact.

Doctrinally, this truth is stated quite succinctly:

Jesus is the Light of the world.

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”

Conclusion: Every man does evil and therefore hates the Light, which is the grace and truth of God, thereby hating God who is grace and truth. (John 1:17)

"there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

 

[Protestant]

I have LOVED the message of grace and forgiveness ever since I can remember.

Then why do you fight against the truth of grace which the Lord has revealed in His Word that we might know:

-- the truth of how we were saved

-- the truth that He does not owe grace to anyone

-- the truth that He does not will to give grace to all

-- the truth that He alone decides to whom He will give grace

-- the truth that grace is given to the underserving, not the deserving

-- the truth that grace is given to the helpless, not the able

Now, the idea of trying to keep the law, or merit salvation, I could see how that would frustrate or exasperate me and make me an enemy, but the gospel is good news.

It is especially good news for those who know they are miserably sin sick and in need of help outside of themselves.

Those who come to acknowledge their helplessness are those whom the Lord heals.

Did you find the Good Shepherd or did the Good Shepherd find you?

There is no question that He found me and forgave me much.

Did He forgive you much?

 

[The Biblicist]

So, in this text:

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.​

Why was the Lord grieved that he had made man? [/QUOTE[

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And why did he find favor with Noah?

Because the only reason why Noah was not the same condition is the grace of God.

Did God effectually give Noah a new heart making him favorable?

Yes!

If so, why didn't God simply make the people do what he desired them to do so as not to be grieved by them?

You can't make grace mandatory, but that is exactly what your argument demands. If it does not fit your model then God is to be blamed rather than man's responsbility freely forfeited as mankind consisted and existed in one man and chose to sin thus falling into a state of inability.

Ok, I'll use your definition. God treats us as if we are 'obligated to respond' thus strongly implying the ability to do that which he obligates, especially in light of the FACT that we will be held accountable for that response with eternal damnation.

You wrongly accuse me of denying responsiblity for sin. I simply place the responsible forfeiture of ability to respond when humanity was in its most purest state of ability and all of human nature acted under the best possible circumcstances to freely and responsibly forfeit the state of ability to obey God by sinning and falling into a state of inability to please God.

P.S. I am worn out, I am an old man and I have had enough mental exercise for the day. See ya tomorrow.

 

[Protestant]

Who is they?

Biblicist has correctly answered who “they” are.

“They” is “us”……..all humans born of the flesh.

Because I read about a lot of faithful people (great cloud of witnesses) who were sinners, but forgiven...and loved the truth of God's grace.

“We love because He first loved us.”

The faithful people were and are the objects of God’s eternal love.

His unconditional love is manifested in the absolute predestination unto salvation of his beloved Elect.

I think we disagree as to why some believe and others do not.

I think we agree why we disagree.

However, there are more areas of disagreement:

--The purpose of the Atonement

--The purpose of the Gospel

--The eternal purpose of creating man

--the gravity of original sin

--the perfection of God in carrying out His eternal purposes

…..to name a few.