CALVINISM'S TEACHING OF TOTAL INABILITY IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

Translation: "The passages you presented destroyed my premise, so my only choice at this point is to dismiss it as irrelevant and go back to my original assertion as if you never said anything."

So, you want to do a work study? OK.

Akouo - strongs #191 occurs 454 times in 402 verses (including Acts 28:28)
Epakroaomai - strongs #1874 occurs 1 time: Acts 16:25--weird, are the prisoners the only ones who listen in all of scripture?

Translations that use the word "hear" in Acts 28:28:
KJV, Websters, Robert Young Literal Tranlation.

All of these translation also translate Epakroaomai as "heard" in Acts 16:25. So that doesn't help you any.

Translations that interpret both words as "listen" in both of the passages in question: KJV, NLT, NASB, HNV, RSV to name a few.

Now lets look at some examples of passages that use the word "akouo" that contradict your translation, shall we: (I could literally use dozens of passages, but here are just two)

 Jhn 15:15   Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard (akouo) of my Father I have made known unto you.

Does Jesus merely hear sounds from the Father? Or does he "LISTEN"? Hmmmmm....I wonder?

 Mat 13:13-16   Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear (akouo) not, neither do they understand.   And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear (akouo), and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing (akouo), and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear(akouo) with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. (akouo)

This passage is in the exact same context as Paul's passage in Acts 28 as they both are speaking of Israel's hardening. The difference is that Jesus contrasts the Apostles with Hardened Israel and Paul contrasts the Gentiles with Harden Israel. And looky here, the same work "akouo" is used to speak about the apostles "hearing" as is spoken of about the Gentiles.

Your argument that "akouo" somehow dismisses the relevance of the rest of my argument is pure nonsense and you know it. You're smart enough to see that the word "akouo" is used to mean "listen" or understand throughout the scripture. You only focus on this because you cannot answer the arguments or direct questions I have presented in relation to this text.

And even if the word "akouo" could possibly only be refering to the noise of the call, we can definately say that even the Israelites don't have the ability to "hear the noise of the calling" but the Gentiles do! And because they can hear the text clearly spells out what "might" happen if one was not hardened:

otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear (akouo) with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted--and I would heal them.'

This verse shows us the ability of men who are not hardened!!!! A point that Calvinist's teaching of Total Inability completely contradicts

If "Total Inability" is true then how can this phrase make any sense? Especially in the light of the fact that "hardening" is unique to Israel and it is only temporary. In other words, these things don't discribe the "normal" man. They discribe a uniquely "hardened" man who has continually refused the things of God.

Before Israel was "hardened," you believe that they were "total unable" because of the Fall. So, why the word "otherwise" as if they "might" be able to "see, hear and understand" if the hardening had not occured? Or when the Hardening ends, are they going to then have the ability to see, hear, understand and be converted as this passages says, or are they still going to be "Totally Depraved" and complelety unable as Calvinism assumes?

YOU ARE AVOIDING THESE QUESTIONS!!!

 

Yes, the natural condition of man is what we are debating over.

Calvinism teaches = All mankind is totally UNABLE to see, hear, understand the things of God so as to be converted and healed.

Arminianism teaches = All mankind is by God's grace able to see, hear, understand the power of the Gospel so as to be converted and healed.

Look at this passage concerning the temporary and unique hardening of Israel as taught in Rom. 11:

Act 28:26 'Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
Act 28:27 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; otherwise they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'
Act 28:28 Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen."

The Gentiles are contrasted to the Hardened Israel who cannot see, hear or understand the things of God. Why? Because they continually rebelled and God hardened their hearts so as to graft in the Gentiles.

The Gentiles obviously from this passage can hear. So, they are not hardened as were the Israelites. They have the ability to hear; therefore according to the steps made available in this passage "they could perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for [God] to heal them."

Therefore the "natual condition" of man cannot be unable to "hear, see, understand and turn" as Calvinism teaches. Otherwise this text would be untrue.

 

You should know that it is impossible to prove a negative. That is common knowledge among all of those who debate. You are making a claim, support it.

You believe man does not have free will. Right? Prove it. You have responded to this charge, "Where in scripture does it say that we have free will?" Free will is not specifically mentioned in scripture so to ask you to prove that it doesn't exist is tanamount to you saying prove that Gentile hardening doesn't exist. YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Prove that blue pokadotted gorillas didn't roam the earth in 400bc. Good luck.

If we had a life manual that we believed to be completely true told us. All white people were not allowed by their creator to breath oxygen for a certain period of time in history, but all other people could. Then we would believe it. Though, no doubt, we would wonder how the creator kept them alive, but it's your analogy so I'll leave it at that

Once again it's not up to me to find support for your claim. You can't prove a negative.

Look back at Acts 28. Here are the facts:
1. Hardened Israel cannot hear
2. The Gentiles can hear.
3. If the Gentiles can hear then according to the text look what might follow: otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted--and I would heal them.'

What does the word "otherwise" refer to? What if they were not hardened? What if they could hear?

The Gentiles can hear. Hardened Israel cannot. That completely undercuts you assumption that the Gentiles are hardened as Israel is. Paul shows the difference very clearly.

Also look at what Jesus says in the same context of Israel's rejection:

Mat 21:43   Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you [Israel], and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. ("nation" is specified as the Gentiles in other passages)

Sturgman, you have also neglected Rom. 11:25 which shows us that the hardening is a temporary process for a distinct purpose. How does that reconcile with the teaching that we are all hardened forever from the Fall?

What exactly makes you think I'm taking anything personally? I'm just having fun.

God Bless,
Bill

 

This is absurd. Go read any work on argumentation and you will see that asking someone to prove a negative is not fair debate. If it was you could make any claim you wanted and just say, prove it isn't true. That's impossible. If the Bible doesn't say it, it doesn't say it. I can't make the Bible say, that the Gentiles were not hardened but I can get dang close.

Sturgman, you didn't even address my arguements concerning the FACT the Acts 28:25-28 tells us that Israel cannot hear but the Gentiles can. That is not an opinion, interpretation or anything but pure FACT. This verse says Israel does not have the ability to hear, but it also says that the Gentiles do have the ability to hear.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT BEFORE YOU WILL ADDRESS THAT FACT WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM OF BELIEF?

Let's try it this way, nice and simple:

Hardened = deaf to the things of God

Israel + unable to hear = hardened

(we all agree so far right?)

Gentiles + able to hear = not hardened

This is very simple. Though the verse does not spell out the words "the Gentiles are not hardened," it contrasts the Gentiles with those who are hardened by telling us that they can do something that the Hardened Israel cannot.

This is considered an ARGUEMENT, please address it. Thank you.

I will be more than happy to address your free will argument after you address my argument, but I'm refuse to allow you to ignore what scripture clearly presents simply because it doesn't support your viewpoint.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

THANK YOU! ROMANBEAR!

Romanbear, am I going nuts, or is this argument the most absurd thing you have ever heard?

I know, I'm going to start a new belief about scripture. Jesus was hardened. He was a man, and the Bible never specifically says he wasn't hardened, so prove that he wasn't!

Or how about Adam and Eve in the garden. I say, "They were hardened." The Bible never says they weren't so it must be true.

How about God. I think he hardened himself. The bible never says that he didn't so it must be true.

Judas betrayed Jesus but it never says that Andrew didn't betray Jesus, so prove that he didn't. What is true of one apostle must be true of the others.

These are extreme examples of asking someone to prove a negative. I'm only believing what scripture says, which is that Israel was hardened. These guys are making a new claim that the Gentiles are hardened, and then saying prove that they're not. Even though its not my burden, I still provide proof that Israel and the Gentiles have different abilities and they ignore that.

Plus, they still haven't address Rom 11:25 which clearly teaches that hardening is a temporary process that will come to an end.

Silly Calvinists?????

[ February 21, 2003, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

Dallas, Dallas, Dallas

Please answer these three simple yes or no questions:

1. According to Acts 28; can someone who has been hardened hear the things of God?

2. According to Acts 28; can Israel hear the the things of God?

3. Accoring to Acts 28:28; can the Gentiles hear the things of God?

Thank you
Bill

 

Dallas , I corrected the typo but please don't let that distract from the three very simple questions I've presented.

Oh, and can you point me to the post where Acts 28:28 was answered, I must have missed it.

Thanks,
Bill