CALVINISM'S TEACHING OF TOTAL INABILITY IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

Bill,

I've heard that too....In fact, I used to believe that. However there are too many problems that render this position incongruous to scripture.

1. If it is foreknowledge and NOT election then, God is "rewarding" us for our choice. In other words, then, salvation is not by grace. In fact, if foreknowledge is right, Salvation is something we earn with our belief. We know that can't be right! Therefore, election is the proper interpretation.

The problem with this is simple yet most of us miss it. The fact is that Christ's atoning work happened in History. It did not happen in the "before time." O sure, God knew it would happen. God, in fact, directed history in such a way to insure that the cross would happen. But, the simple fact of the matter is that Christ was doing something on Calvary--it was not a simple formality.

Yea...I've heard something similar to this before. But, I don't see any warrent for this in the Bible.

I used to think that too. But a particular redemption makes all the other stuff possible. Therefore, it is the crux. Because the sin and sins of the elect are paid for, God can regenerate the elect so that they are capable of making that decision.

I'm not sure if you read my last post about dead men....But, I don't know of a dead man that can respond to anything. Unless, however, he is made alive.

I completely agree that the ability and responsibility to accept Christ are crucial. We are all Responsible for our acceptance or rejection of Christ. However, we are all not able to respond.

I hope that helps---it is fun talking with other Christians. Some boards that I've written on in the past were not so nice.

I'll follow-up with another post that, I hope, makes things a bit more clear.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Exactly!! Where is the beef? You've provided absolutely zip, none, nada, zilch, goose-egg, zero.

And now you attempt to save face by turning the challenge back on me. But I wasn't claiming God uses multiple ways, I was simply trying to make you be specific with your scriptural support. I should have known how you'd react, so scratch the way I said it - I'll reword it for your benefit.

So I repeat:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

Show us that you actually have something to offer besides logical fallacies and game-playing debate tactics!

 

And you have completely failed to provide a single scripture that supports your premise for interpreting Acts 28 the way you do.

So I repeat YET AGAIN:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

Are you ever going to provide any scriptural substance to your assumptions, or can we expect you to do nothing but rely on logical fallacies and arguing from silence?

And while you're at it, perhaps you can:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

Or are you totally lacking in anything but tricky debate techniques?

 

Follow-Up!

The thing about Calvinism that most people are uncomfortable with is that it, to some degree, seems unfair.

How is it fair that God not save all and that He just save some?

I think this shows where our presuppositions are.

Those who think a "limited" or "particular" redemption, and all that that entails, is unfair miss a big part of the Bible and they don't even know it!

What they miss is that we are sinners. Paul says we are dead in our trespasses and sin. We are dead....we know what dead is. Dead is when you can't do a dog-on thing for yourself and you get put in a large box and are cerimoniously put in a hole 6-feet-deep.

To use an analogy:

Most people think of redemption this way: God, the loving Father preventing His children from running into the street into oncoming traffic.

However, the Bible paints a much different picture. The Bible says that we, the children, are lying in the street dead ALREADY having been hit by the "cars."

To follow this through, God is not the one who prevents us from running head-long into the death of oncomming traffic. He is the one who walks amongst the dead and revives some of them.

This was difficult for me to get. I didn't want to be a Calvinist because I thought it to be unfair. However, I realized it was the only position that accounted for all the Biblical data. And honestly, the Bible is much more open to me now.

This goes along with another common misconception about humans--Total depravity. Many people think that it is terrible and unthinkable when someone, for example, kills someone in a bank robbery. Why do we think this? We are sinners. Sinners sin...that's what we do. A sinner's sinning should not surprise us. What should surprise us is when a sinner becomes a "good samaritan." That person is a sinner but wait a minute, he's not sinning! In fact, he is doing something good! That should blow us away--not that a sinner sins.

Later,

Archangel

 

Ok, The Acts 28:25-28 thing. Here we go!

1. Context:
Paul is in Rome. He is continuing his custom (and this is important) of going to the Jews first and then to the gentiles. It is almost always the case that Paul would preach and teach in the synagoge. As you might imagine, he would be bounced out of there, sometimes violently, and then take his mission to the gentiles.

Here in Rome, Paul is doing the same thing. He is preaching Christ to the Jewish people. Obviously, some believed and some didn't.

At the point that the get-together was becoming a contentious event, Paul quotes from the Old Testament--Isaiah, specifically.

2. Exposition

Paul, in v. 26, begins to "hammer" the Jews (perhaps the non-believers) who were leaving the party. He says, "Go to this people and say, You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; and you will keep on seeing, but will not percieve; For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.

Paul is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10 and in this passage. This passage deals with the commissioning of Isaiah. God tells Isaiah to go speak these words to the people because of their rejection of Him

Now, it is important to remember that the Jews are God's chosen people. In a sense, the didn't need faith, perhaps as we might. They and their ancestors had seen the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire; they had seen the Red Sea swallow the Egyptian armies; they had seen God carry them through the wilderness and deliver the promised land to them. The Jews were chosen to be the carrier of the oracles of God. Not to mention that when God became the God-Man Jesus, He was part of that chosen Jewish people.

The quote from Paul probably should be understood to have the same meaning. It is not related to the gentiles (until v. 28). Paul is describing their, the Jews, dead spiritual condition. It is helpfull that he quotes from Isaiah who is saying the same thing to the Jews of his time.

That Paul is saying that the Gentiles will hear the gospel is no big deal, textually. What it means is this: 1. As was his custom, Paul is now going to preach to the Gentiles in Rome and 2. God is no longer regarding the Jews with their same specialness. This would be quite insulting to the Jew who thanked God that he wasn't created a gentile or a woman. This is like Paul saying, "Your special status is gone."

Paul is going to the Gentiles and is trusting that God will pull converts from their number.

I hope that helps,

Archangel

 

Absolutely. The message is simply "We're taking this to the Gentiles now." I pointed this out already, and I think others did, too.

Let me bring you up to date. Bill's theological concepts are based only on the absence of scripture. I know that sounds weird, but it's true. In other words, his theological assumptions start with what the Bible doesn't say, and goes downhill from there.

For example, "It doesn't specifically say that those who are unable to respond to the Gospel aren't the ones God hardens, therefore hardening is exclusive reason why someone would not respond to the Gospel."

The evidence to back this up is yet another absence of scripture: "It doesn't say that Gentiles are ever hardened, therefore only the Jews are hardened." (Someone pointed out that Pharoah was a Gentile, but it's impolite to confuse someone with facts.)

And in a prior thread, he claimed only apostles and prophets are predestined to be the elect, since "It doesn't say that all people are saved the same way as the apostles and prophets, therefore they aren't saved the same way."

Given that the assumptions are based on what scripture does not say, it is virtually impossible to provide a scriptural foundation for the theology. But as a matter of principle, I keep asking. So I'll ask again.

Hey Bill:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

And while you're at it:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

 

Hey Bill! It's that rude guy again. Perhaps you missed these, because it's been weeks since you posted your opinions and you still haven't supplied any supporting scriptures for them. So here they are again:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

And while you're at it:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

Still waiting for that scriptural support...

UNTIL THEN, ALL YOUR TEACHING OF EVERYTHING IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

 

Bill,

Back to the Acts passage...

The purposes are timeless, that is correct. However, God acts within the framework of time. For example, the payment that Christ made on the cross (either general or particular) was not paid until "Good Friday." It was not paid a week or a month or years earlier; it was not paid years later, etc. Something took place on Calvary--it wasn't a formality or a show.

This would be like saying that since so-and-so and I are going to be married in a year, it is OK for us to live together as husband and wife now.

Living as husband and wife and, more to the point, the sexual union is not "legal" in God's standards until after the marriage ceremony. This same idea applies to the redemption on the Cross.

No, it isn't inconsistant. Unfortunatly, I think that you missed the context of Romans 6:11. The passage is dealing with the idea of should a Christian sin so that Grace may abound. Of course, Paul says "May it never be!"

The most telling part of the passage is not where Paul says "dead to sin." The most important part of the passage, contextually (for our discussion) is the word consider. This word is "Logidzesthe" in greek. It is a present, middle, imparitive. In other words, it means "Take the attitude to yourself that you are dead to sin."

Also, in the Romans 6:19 passage, Paul is not declaring that Christians are slaves to righteousness, he is saying to "Present your members as slaves to righteousness."

The Ephesians passage (Eph 2:1-2) is a declaritive passage. You were dead (in what?) in your transgressions and sins (from where?) in which you used to live when you followed the was of this world...

It is quite clear that the uses of Dead do not contradict one another.

Again, Dead men can't do a thing for themselves.

It is pretty cool talking with you too. I will always attempt to keep a civil tone.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

I've answered this question twice for you without any response and yet you have yet to provide scriptural support that man is "total unable" to respond to the gospel besides those passages that are in reference to Israel's hardening. We can clearly see that the bible teaches Israel is hardened, it is not clear that the Gentiles are also hardened and its not clear that they are "totally unable" to believe either. That's your claim, therefore your burden to prove it!</font>[/QUOTE]No, YOUR claim is that the gentiles can hear of their own free will, and your reasoning is that the difference between those who can hear and those who cannot all comes down to hardening. Once again, you base your conclusion on, "It is not clear that the Gentiles are hardened." So, as I've said repeatedly, your reasoning is based on what the Bible does NOT say. That is arguing from silence, which is nothing but a shoddy debate technique.

So I ask once again for the scriptural support for your premise:

Show us your scriptural support that "hardening" is the exclusive cause for the inability to respond to the Gospel.

Until you do, your teaching is ENTIRELY UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE. (See? I can use all caps, too.)

This has been fully discussed on the other posts, you ignored many of my posts then too, remember. "It's not worthy of my response." I believe those were your exact words.

"Effectually Calling" is only spoken of in regard to Apostles in the scriptures, therefore your claim that God treats us all in the same manner as his divinely appointed apostles is your burden to prove.</font>[/QUOTE]There you go again. You are saying exactly what I claim you say -- that your conclusions are based on what is NOT in the Bible. This is classic arguing from silence, which amounts to nothing more than a manipulative debate technique.

So when are you going to offer anything of substance? I ask you again:

Show us your scriptural support for the starting assumption that God specifically saved the apostles and prophets one way, but saves everyone else another way.

 

Bill,

Well, you haven't met too many "Good" Calvinists, then. I think Spurgeon sumed it up the best when he said something to the effect of "God did not paint the mebmers of the elect with a big, yellow stripe down their back. If he had, it would have made things much easier."

All of that is to say, we do and should evangelize in a way that we earnestly try to convince all that Christ is the way. We do not know who will and who won't respond. But, that does not remove the responsibility of the "Great Commission" from us! We are still called to "Go" and "Preach" and "Make Disciples."

Obviously, I dissagree with your assessment. But this leads me to another question: What about Pharoah and his hard heart?

Of course "otherwise" points to greener pastures. But, that isn't a real big deal. God always uses that in the Prophets to call Israel to give an account for their breaking of the Covenant. Moses used it in Deuteronomy.

The fact remains, that Romans 3:10-11 cannot be overlooked: as it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.

If none are righteous, and if none seek after God how could that be anything but a hard heart. Rember, this Romans passage is not conditional in language--It is declaritive.

It would seem that this passage is extreemly damaging to your position. In fact, I'd like to know what you think of this passage.

It would seem that the afore mentioned Romans passage does not qualify between Jews and Gentiles. It says "All."

Again, this assumes that humans are basically "good" when the Bible definatly says that we are not. Review my post on "Playing in Traffic" in case you missed it.

Because it would seem that we are at an impasse, I would like to ask this question: What happened on Good Friday on the Cross? This may help to break-down the road blocks.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Bro Bill, you are also using "an arguement of silence" when you argue with us. You say that the the gentiles are not hardened, and that they have free will. Yet this is not in scripture, it is only your assumption based upon how you interpret these scriptures. You say the apostles are elect, but we are not. The scriptures does not say that we are not, in faact it says in Titus that we are chosen. Yet, you continue to hold to that.

I am not trying to argue here, just looking at it objectively. You are accusing us of argueing incorrectly, then you turn around and use the same debate tactics on us.

 

Once again, you have already inserted your assumption here, and it is based on silence. You have failed to provide scriptural support for hardening as equivalent to the inability to respond to the Gospel. Yet you begin your argument with that conclusion -- and then you proceed to argue from MORE silence by saying that the Bible never says the Gentiles are hardened. That might actually mean something if you'd simply provide a scripture that defines hardening as the only reason people cannot respond. But you can't provide that scripture, because it doesn't exist. So instead of admitting your argument has no merit whatsoever, you ignore scripture that DOES exist:

It DOES say we are totally inable, but you would rather ignore those plain scriptures in favor of your hypothesis based on no scripture at all.

You are grossly misrepresenting the Calvinist view, because you impose upon it your first assumption - that hardening and the inability to respond are identical. You do this repeatedly even though you have not provided a shred of scriptural support for this assumption.

So you judge the Calvinist view by imposing on it a false assumption based on false criteria invented from no scripture whatsoever! That takes a lot of chutzpah.

I won't bother addressing the rest of your substance-free post. When are you ever going to provide scriptural support instead of assumptions based on the LACK of scripture?