-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why do Calvinists on this board think my arguments are "new"???
- Thread starter William C
- Start date
This is sad. Those ignorant of the past are destined to repeat its mistakes. </font>[/QUOTE]Bzzzt. Try again. You're trying to make it sound as if your arguments are found in Arminius. I am reading the site and I have yet to find any such arguments. The best you've been able to provide so far are quotes that deal with hardening. Whoop-tee-doo.
Of course the issue of hardening played a significant role in the classical debate! Guess what they're talking about? Hardening. In most cases where the issue of hardening is raised, the focal point is God's sovereignty. One side says God can harden whomever he pleases. The other side takes the Ben Franklin view, that "God hardens those who harden themselves."
Now what does that have to do with your bizarre soteriology? Nothing. Your premise is that total depravity is interchangeable with God's hardening of those who harden themselves.
You haven't come within light years of showing that the soteriology you preach has anything to do with this article, the writings of Arminius, the writings of Calvin, or anyone else except you. So your attempt to chalk it all up to "so you haven't read Arminius, what poow widdle sad peopew you are" is pathetic.
This is sad. Those ignorant of the past are destined to repeat its mistakes. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is this sad? The Bible is my authority. I don't need either one of these. They are outdated. I have read many modern writers and modern scholars on the topic so it is not as if I am uninformed. I am not ignorant of the past, nor am I ignorant of Scripture. That is why I find your arguments so totally unconvincing.
When I start following Calvin or ARminius, then I will start reading them. I have no real need to since I deal with very few people who need more than what God's word has to say. So long as I am a preacher of God's word, I will maintain my allegiance to it.
Yes, quotes where Arminius teaches what I have been saying concerning hardening and that is God hardens people who deserve hardening. That is people who have continually rebelled against his revelations and lived in sin.
No. You still don't get it. I don't believe in Total depravity as taught by Calvinists so I don't believe its "interchangeable" with any Biblical teachings. I'm only attempting to show the Calvinistic flaw is their belief that certain texts (like Romans 9 or John 6) support their view of Total Depravity are actually in reference to Hardening. Showing the similarities between the Biblical view of Hardening and the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity was just a way of explaining that falacy. You still haven't provided any kind of definition of hardening for us. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Are you arguing that Arminus doesn't make the argument that God hardens those who have deserved hardening because of their continual rebellion toward God's revelation to them?
You need to go back and read the artical again. Slower this time.
Yes, you do, as I'll illustrate in a moment.
That's what I mean. This is called (once again) arguing from ignorance. Calvinists refer to many prooftexts that show total depravity. You take texts that specifically describe hardening, and then apply them without basis to the other texts that do not refer to hardening.
So when calvinists point to texts that indicate no one can come to God unless they are enabled, or no one seeks God, etc., you argue (from ignorance) that these either texts must not really describe total depravity, or they must be referring to hardening.
Of course, you provide no Biblical evidence whatsoever that this is true, which is why it is called arguing from ignorance.
Then, you try to shift the burden of proof to the calvinists to demonstrate that it's not true (that variation on the devious debate tactic of arguing from ignorance, as I described it here).
So it's no wonder these arguments aren't worth refuting. They have their basis in nothing but debate tactics.
And I've noticed you still haven't given us your definition of hardening. 
How does understanding Jesus' words in John 6 about people not being able to believe unless it was granted to them by God not have anything to do with John 12:39-40:
39 This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.
Calvinism's Total Depravity teaches people don't have the ability to believe the gospel.
Biblical Hardening teaches people don't have the ability to believe the gospel.
Calvinism's Total Depravity says that this inablity has affected all mankind due to the fall but has no conclusive scriptural support to back up this claim.
Biblical Hardening says that this inability has affected those whom God temporarily and purposefully blinded (hardened), whom previously He had continually and patiently "held out his hands to" and "longed to gather under his wings" but they were unwilling to obey.
Calvinism's Total Depravity teaches that there must be a second more powerful secret calling of God since the general call of the HS and the gospel is not sufficient.
Biblical Hardening teaches that if not for the hardening everyone "might hear, see, understand and turn to God for healing" as a result of the gospel being preached. And it teaches that not everyone has been hardened as were the Israelites for the "Gentiles will listen!" And it teaches that the active hardening of Israel is temporary.
The difference? Hardening is a word the scripture actually uses and references in numerous texts. Total Depravity is term that is never used, never expounded upon, never supported and never defined in the text except in the minds of those who want it to be there.
How does understanding Jesus' words in John 6 about people not being able to believe unless it was granted to them by God not have anything to do with John 12:39-40:
39 This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.
Calvinism's Total Depravity teaches people don't have the ability to believe the gospel.
Biblical Hardening teaches people don't have the ability to believe the gospel.
Calvinism's Total Depravity says that this inablity has affected all mankind due to the fall but has no conclusive scriptural support to back up this claim.
Biblical Hardening says that this inability has affected those whom God temporarily and purposefully blinded (hardened), whom previously He had continually and patiently "held out his hands to" and "longed to gather under his wings" but they were unwilling to obey.
Calvinism's Total Depravity teaches that there must be a second more powerful secret calling of God since the general call of the HS and the gospel is not sufficient.
Biblical Hardening teaches that if not for the hardening everyone "might hear, see, understand and turn to God for healing" as a result of the gospel being preached. And it teaches that not everyone has been hardened as were the Israelites for the "Gentiles will listen!" And it teaches that the active hardening of Israel is temporary.
The difference? Hardening is a word the scripture actually uses and references in numerous texts. Total Depravity is term that is never used, never expounded upon, never supported and never defined in the text except in the minds of those who want it to be there.
Shifting the burden of proof in order to establish your equivocation and non-sequitur. If I give the obvious definition of hardening, you point to John 6 and say "See? They cannot respond to the gospel, therefore they must be hardened!" Yawn. A moron can anticipate that tactic. (And since I'm a moron, I've just proved it.)
Non-sequitur and arguing from ignorance. You identify two things that have similarities and then say that it follows (non-sequitur - it does not follow) that they refer to the same thing. You do this without any scriptural evidence that the passages refer to the same thing (arguing from ignorance).
In reality, there are several extremely significant differences between the two passages.
I could take those differences point by point, but it is a waste of time debating with a game player who has no interest in the truth. The bottom line is that if John 6:65 referred to hardening, it would communicate the message, "Those who are hardened cannot come to Me because they are disabled (hardened) by the Father."
But it doesn't say anything close to that. "No one" excludes all. There is no provision for those who are not hardened. And it says "enabled/given to", which communicates that God must actively enable someone or give something to someone in order for them to "come to Me". That does not communicate the idea that God is "removing" His hardening, but enabling them to have something the do not have to begin with.
So your deceptive debate tactics, while entertaining at first, are useless.
[ April 06, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
So Larry,
You believe we shouldn't handle disagreements biblically?
I was following the Matt. 18 model and confronting the very issue you deleted from Nick's posts. You tell us to handle the problems on our own. I tried. You delete me.
There needs to be equal representation from both perspectives, you are obviously bias and I have all the documentation to prove that to the moderates of the Baptist Board.
God Bless,
Brother Bill
[ April 08, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]
You believe we shouldn't handle disagreements biblically?
I was following the Matt. 18 model and confronting the very issue you deleted from Nick's posts. You tell us to handle the problems on our own. I tried. You delete me.
There needs to be equal representation from both perspectives, you are obviously bias and I have all the documentation to prove that to the moderates of the Baptist Board.
God Bless,
Brother Bill
[ April 08, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]
P
Pastor J.R. Hampton
Guest
Oh, my.
It sounds like we have some differences of opinion. I sure hope you two can work out you differences in a kindly manner.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue but it does seem that the bible's teaching about certain people being hardened would be fairly imporant to understanding Romans 9. Am I wrong?
It sounds like we have some differences of opinion. I sure hope you two can work out you differences in a kindly manner.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue but it does seem that the bible's teaching about certain people being hardened would be fairly imporant to understanding Romans 9. Am I wrong?
Yes, I hope we can work out our differences as well. Thanks for your concern.
Yes, hardening is important to understand. The concept is seen in throughout the gospels and in many of the epistles, especially in Romans 9-11 where much of the Calvinistic/Arminian debate rests. To ignore or dismiss these teachings is to approach the text without an understanding of the historical context or the unique nature of the audience he is addressing.
Again, welcome to the board.
Yes, hardening is important to understand. The concept is seen in throughout the gospels and in many of the epistles, especially in Romans 9-11 where much of the Calvinistic/Arminian debate rests. To ignore or dismiss these teachings is to approach the text without an understanding of the historical context or the unique nature of the audience he is addressing.
Again, welcome to the board.
You are right. Hardening is an extremely important issue. The difference of opinion here is not about hardening, however, nor is it about sovereignty, which is usually what people discuss when they deal with Romans 9 and hardening.
Bill has introduced the novel idea that the verses that teach total depravity actually refer to people who God hardened (because they first hardened themselves). It requires arguing from ignorance (adding hardening to passages that don't talk about it and even contradict it) and non-sequiturs (arguments that simply assume that if X is true, it follows that Y must also be true, even though there is no support for that conclusion).
It is ultimately about hardening and sovereignty, becasue Calvinists center their whole position around Romans 9 and the other passages about inability and "blinding". From here it is assumed that God deliberately hardens individuals to damn them "for His glory" in contrast to the "elect". But under the premise of "single predestination" they deny that God is doing anything to the non-elect, so then "hardening" just means "leaving them in their state of depravity", which is then said to be "just". But still, hardening is an active move attributed to God, "so they may not see" (John 12/Isaiah) so still, this hardening as it is commonly understood, is connected with their damnation compared with the salvation of the elect. Calvinists have lumped all of these scriptures together as "all of the scriptural proof they have", so don't anybody now say these are "two things that have similarities ... (non-sequitur - it does not follow) that they refer to the same thing."
Where Bill's view differs slightly from mine in some respects (which I still have to weigh and consider), he is basically on the mark about the temporal purpose of hardening, according to the contexts in scripture. If man is so depraved, he does not need to be "hardened" in order to be judged, so hardening is either for a group in general for a revealed future purpose, or for individuals who have already rejected many opportunities (Bill makes these both the same, if I read correctly, and this is the main difference between us. The Calvinists are also making them the same, but it is assumed to be always individuals and always eternal damnation).
This is quite central to the debate. I don't see how people can now be claiming this is "nothing anyone is talking about".
Where Bill's view differs slightly from mine in some respects (which I still have to weigh and consider), he is basically on the mark about the temporal purpose of hardening, according to the contexts in scripture. If man is so depraved, he does not need to be "hardened" in order to be judged, so hardening is either for a group in general for a revealed future purpose, or for individuals who have already rejected many opportunities (Bill makes these both the same, if I read correctly, and this is the main difference between us. The Calvinists are also making them the same, but it is assumed to be always individuals and always eternal damnation).
This is quite central to the debate. I don't see how people can now be claiming this is "nothing anyone is talking about".
Eric you said "so hardening is either for a group in general for a revealed future purpose, or for individuals who have already rejected many opportunities."
Please explain how these are not "the same." How does the hardening of a group in general not affect the specific individual of that group?
And you must agree that those who are hardened (Israelites) are ones who had "already rejected many opportunities." I'm not sure how you and I disagree. Please explain. Thanks.
That is a blatant misrepresentation of calvinism. Those I've read regarding election (and that includes people like Luther, who precede Calvin) regard the passage in Romans 9 on hardening as reflecting God's sovereignty. I have never seen any Calvinists equate blinding/hardening with inability in a reciprocal sense. Of course if you're blinded you can't see, but not all those who cannot see have been blinded - many were born blind.
Similarly, the calvinist assumption is that we are born unwilling and therefore unable to respond to the Gospel. There are plenty of scriptures that communicate this very thing without ever mentioning hardening.
Again, you have misrepresented the calvinist position here. To say that "God deliberately hardens individuals to damn them" assumes your conclusion is correct and then puts it in the mouths of calvinists.
If you understand this, then why do you insist they believe something else?
Again, you have asserted your conclusion without ever providing any support for it. The error here is "compared with the salvation of the elect". But that is not what the Bible says, it is what you say. The Bible simply says God hardens whom He will. We have some examples of God hardening people, such as Pharoah. That example communicates that God hardened Pharoah not to damn him vs. the elect, but to manipulate his anger in order to bring plague after plague, which would eventually get Pharoah to a point where he'd not only release the Hebrews, but let the Hebrews plunder the Egyptians in the process! After that, God displayed His glory in the parting of the Red Sea because Pharoah was so hardened as to want to enslave them yet again! So hardening is not all about salvation at all.
One reason Paul brings it up in Romans 9, however, is to answer any critics who would say that hardening Pharoah was unfair. But Paul says the obvious - God hardens whomever He will, and has mercy on whomever He will. Get over it.
Well, if you're honest, you'll admit that this is not the case. I just illustrated it isn't. See above.
Circular reasoning. This conclusion is only true if you assume that the purpose of hardening is to be damned, which is YOUR STARTING PREMISE, which calvinists assert is false.
It is only central to YOUR concept of what constitutes the debate. Calvinists aren't even talking about this issue at all, because they don't assume that hardening is equivalent to total depravity.
Nick,
You say that Eric misrepresents the Calvinistic view of concerning the issue of hardening.
How would anyone know? No Calvinist on this board has expressed there views of hardening and according to Larry "no body is talking about it." And even his own theological books don't discuss it in regard to this discussion.
If hardening is different from Total Depravity then it should be very easy for you to define both of these terms and point out the differences.
(you're not scared are you )
You say that Eric misrepresents the Calvinistic view of concerning the issue of hardening.
How would anyone know? No Calvinist on this board has expressed there views of hardening and according to Larry "no body is talking about it." And even his own theological books don't discuss it in regard to this discussion.
If hardening is different from Total Depravity then it should be very easy for you to define both of these terms and point out the differences.
(you're not scared are you
)Oh, yeah, I'm petrified that you'll whip another argument from ignorance on me.Originally posted by Brother Bill:
If hardening is different from Total Depravity then it should be very easy for you to define both of these terms and point out the differences.
(you're not scared are you
I have illustrated differences between hardening and TD in numerous places, including the above post. Read it.
Interesting that you think that the issue of election in Romans 9 has to do with salvation but hardening doesn't.
BTW, I agree that hardening doesn't have to do specfically with salvation in regard to Pharoah. It has to do with God accomplishing the purpose of bringing redeemption to his people. Many recongize that the Exodus is a symbol of what was to come. Moses is seen as the the redeemer sent by God, and is compared to Jesus. Pharoah is hardened so as to accomplish the redemption of his people just as the Israelites were hardened so as to accomplish the redemption of whosoever believes in Him.
Hardening was used to bring about God redemption in the Exodus which was a foreshawdowing of the redemption which was to come, in which God also utilized hardening in order to accomplish that purpose.
Why was Pharoah hardened? To show glory of God's wrath in the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt.
Why were the Israelites hardened? To show the Glory of God's love and mercy in the redemption of the world from His wrath through the death and resurrection of Christ to all who believe.
The hardened Jews, lead by Judas, carried out the crucifixion of the Savior by God's sovereign decree. So, your right in that hardening is not directly related to "salvation." In fact, I believe that many of those who were hardened to carry out that crucifixtion later believed and were saved as recorded in Acts 2-3.
But the fact is that while Christ was on earth he elected 12 apostles to teach and to carry out his purpose. It wasn't granted to anyone else to "come to him" in the flesh. All that the Father gave to him while in the flesh, as seen in John 17, were those who were appointed as apostles. Most of those who were not "given to Him by the Father" were hardened and therefore could not believe (John 12:37-41) for they did not have "ears to hear." They were not elected to be apostles and learn directly from the Christ in the flesh.
Does that mean God never "elected" anyone else? Not for that purpose, no. But he did elect for others to hear the testimony so that they too might enter the New Covenant. Who did he elect to hear the message? THE WORLD! "Go into all the world..." Yes, even to the Gentiles whom God has elected to hear and believe. He has granted them entrance through repentance and faith. Before the foundation of the world he had appointed that the Gentiles would hear the gospel and be allowed entrance into the covenant of grace. The amazing mystery of the Gospel is that God had always planned or "predestined" that the Gentiles would be grafted in through faith.
Numerous places? In the above post you do not provide any real substance for your stance on hardening. And please show me one other place where you have attempted to show any differences?
I'm sick of hearing your endless dribble about "arguements from ignorance," which is so obviously an avoidance ploy tactic that you employ to smoke screen your own ignorance of the issues. You don't know how to explain hardening in your system. It's your weakness and you know it, so you have to divert attention away from it by attacking the messenger.
"Look at Bill, he is being deceptive"
"Look at Bill, He is using debate tactics."
"Look at Bill, He is arguing from ignorance."
If you can keep everyone's eyes on me and my so called "deceptive tricks and debate tactics" then maybe everyone will ignore the biblical truth concerning the temporary hardening of Israel that completely undercuts and disassembles your theological premise of total depravity.
Nick, if you want to continue to ignore the arguments by attacking the methods used to present them, that's fine, go right ahead. But, you are not fooling me one bit. I know you don't know how to answer these arguments and its driving you nuts. You're too embedded in your own system and blinded by your competiveness to see it but I know exactly what going on.
By the way, have you ever even answered the simple question: "Why would God harden someone who was already born totally unable to see, hear, understand and turn to God?"
Why would He hide, or veil the gospel with parables from people who are not capable of believing it due to the Fall?
Hmmm? I wonder?