Featured Good Debate

Would also add that classical Arminianism sees that in same light, it just that once reawaken by god, the person can decide to 'go back to sleep"

 

No, not saying that YOU are, but don't PB teach that one is saved by elction regeneration, apart from faith, as the sinner will get to heaven even if never formally professed christ?

 

Respectfully, no, you didn't. I asked for any quote which specifically supports your view that, "the Gospel would regenerate EVERYBODY if God did not take active means to stop it."

I've yet to read Hodge or anyone who has made that specific claim. Yes, they support gospel regeneration and an all sufficient atonement, but I can't find where they teach about God's active work to prevent the proclamation of the gospel from effectually regenerating the non-elect peoples. Again, I ask you to find me a quote on this point.

Well, we do know from the texts that the judicial hardening was limited to Israel and was 'temporary.' Romans 11 explains that pretty clearly. Even Calvinists speak Israel's judicial hardening, and though there is debate about when that hardening is lifted, there is little debate over wether or not it will come to an end, thus showing most scholars do agree that the hardening of Israel is temporary.

That is a given. We both believe his glory is his motive, but in my view I show HOW what He does actually would glorify Him:

1. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for the crucifixion and thus redemption for the world = God's Glory

2. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for the ingrafting of the Gentiles into His Church = God's Glory

3. Hardening Israel temporarily allowed for ministry to the Gentiles with could provoke the Jews to envy and salvation = God's Glory

Now your turn (I'll start the sentence):

Hardening every unbelieving reprobate accomplishes ______ and brings God Glory by ___________?

Cannot or will not?

If you, as a father, choose not to use physical force to get your child to submit to your command would it be accurate for me to say that your not strong enough to control your kid? Or your kids will is stronger than yours? Of course not. It was your choice not to use physical force, not theirs. Likewise, it was God's choice not to use irresistibly means, not ours.

It is honestly not meant to be a 'low blow.' Even Jesus said that the road is narrow and "FEW" who will find it. And I DID say 'relative few,' meaning in comparison to the numbers of people lost.

Who? And on what basis?

A simple overview of history, population and stats will reveal this position to be quite untenable.

Quite contrary. Because we actually believe He is almighty, we also believe he is able to maintain his sovereignty and knowledge while other free independent moral creatures exist. Your view is the one who denies God's omnipotence by suggesting he is just not able to maintain those attributes while other truly free creatures exist.

 

That seems to be a fairly accurate analogy. I've only encountered "Calvinist B" in all my debating and reading, and this is the first I've encountered "Calvinist A." So, it is somewhat confusing but still interesting. At least Luke is willing to try and address the issue of God's active judicial hardening, as most Calvinists tend to drop out when it comes up.

I suspect there isn't any notable scholars who support the "Calvinist A" position. Even the most strict 'double predestinarians' I've read don't take this particular approach. But I could be wrong. I'd be very interested to find any because I'd like to read up on how they respond to many of these objections, and how people have reacted to their views. I can only imagine how Sproul, MacArthur, Piper and other modern notable Calvinistic scholars would react to "Calvinists A." I do know that Phil Johnson (MacArthur's ghost writer) wouldn't hesitate to call him a "Hyper Calvinist."

 

What verses directly say God hardened the Jews of that time, and not their own hard hearts caused them to reject Yeshua as messiah?

 

isn't a majority of the "angst' here on the board that gets directed towards cals really reflect reaction to Hyper cals views?

 

Yesh, we've been over this a few dozen times. Its not either/or, it is both/and. Pharaoh hardened his own heart, in that he is the one who decided to keep Israel as free slave labor. But, God at times hides the truth of his revelation from Pharaoh (judicially hardens him) to keep him from changing his mind before God accomplishes his purpose (passover). The same is true with Israel in the days of Christ. He blinds them from the clear revelation in order to bring about the Passover.

"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." Rom 11:8

There are MANY verses which speak of judicial hardening (John 12:30; Acts 28:21-28; Mark 4; Matt 13 to name a few)

 

No! Go ask Old Union in CC or Kyred in BB. They are both Elders in those type of churches. If you confront Old Union please do not do it in front of GF or P4T as they will cause an argument. Please be discreet & go private in CC.

 

But those who hold to gospel regeneration, don't necessarily believe the gospel's proclamation will regenerate everyone who hears it unless God actively intervenes to prevent it. They believe, as Webdog illustrated, that the words (proclamation) must first be preceded by revival of the corpse (regeneration), which may happen simultaneously with the preaching of the gospel, but is unique for the elect alone. I've not seen any scholars which say what you have about God actively preventing the proclamation of the gospel from regenerating the non-elect. Have you? I'm only asking for a quote.

No, no, no. When I was a Calvinist I believed in gospel regeneration myself and much of the misunderstandings (and accusations of misrepresentations) came from me arguing with Calvinists who didn't believe this way. Even you argued that someone could be regenerated long before hearing the gospel in one of the thread, if you remember? So, what you may have taken as my being 'unaware' of this belief, was my surprise that you believed it. But again, believing in gospel regeneration IS NOT the belief that the gospel proclamation would regenerate everyone who heard it if not for God's active means to prevent that from happening. That view still appears to be unique to you.

As I've said, Gospel regeneration can simply mean that the Spirit works through the gospel to regenerate his elect. In other words, the effectual work of regenerating always works simultaneously with and through the gospel's proclamation, but that work (that effectual calling) is ONLY applied to the elect ones, not on everyone. Your concept of "TULIP" would need to change it's "I" to mean, "God irresistibly calls everyone who hears the gospel, but He steps in to prevent that effectual call from working with various means for those He has not elected." No Calvinistic scholar (that I'm aware of) takes this approach.

EXACTLY. Notice that Calvin "commend more highly the GRACE" (the Irresistible Grace/Effectually calling), because it is NOT EQUALLY communicated to all. In other words, the gospel proclamation comes with the HS regenerative power for the elect only. Nothing is said of God's active means to prevent his effectual grace from regenerating the non-elect.

I'm sorry this is frustrating you Luke, I really am. It is not my intention to upset you by pressing you on this point, but I'm not an idiot either and I have read ALOT of Calvinistic scholars over the years. My doctoral dissertation is on this topic, so I would think that in all my research and reading over the years that I would have come across at least one scholar who handles this point of disagreement in this manner. If it does exist in academia I want to read it for myself and study up on it. But does anyone you know define the "I" in TULIP like you do here in this thread? Does anyone call the general appeal of the gospel "irresistible?" Does anyone say God prevents that general appeal of the gospel from regenerating the non-elect through special means? If so, just point them out to me, but I just don't believe they exist.

Oh, I believe your view is MORE consistent than the typical Calvinistic view. At least you acknowledge the power of the gospel to bring the dead to life. The only difference in our views now is that I believe its man's free will which keeps them from being regenerated, and you believe its God's active means to prevent them from being regenerated. In other words, your view puts the blame on God, where as mine keeps the blame on mankind. The reason many Calvinists reject the idea of Double Predestination is to avoid this charge, but you gave up that inconsistency of the Calvinistic system long ago, so now I'm pressing you on the reality of that view, which squarely places the blame on God for man's rejection of what is supposedly called a genuine gospel appeal sent to every person. Your view actually has God out there actively working to prevent men from being regenerated when hearing the gospel. That is a rare position indeed.

Ok, lets pick one verse at a time:

26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" -Acts 28​

Do you acknowledge the distinction Paul draws between Israel, who has 'become calloused" and the Gentiles who "will listen." If not, why not? We'll go to Romans 10-11, Mark 4, Matt 13, John 12:39, etc, next...

The rest of the post gets into the weeds a bit more, so I'll stop here for now and pick up on the other points in another post...

 

Discussion with Luke continued...

1. Why does hardening accomplish 'their doom' if they are born doomed? And why would that be an 'accomplishment' which would glorify God?

2. Wouldn't a better demonstration of God's wrath be the condemnation of those who independently and freely rebelled against Him, rather than the condemnation of those he actively blinded and condemned from birth?

3. Isn't holiness 'separateness from sin?' So, how does arguing God's active determination of sin and active prevention of regeneration help better demonstrate his holiness?

I didn't say he had to give any explanations, but the fact that he does tell us why temporarily hardening Israel is important for the redemption of the world certainly suggests that my view is more in line with the biblical revelation. I mean, if the bible told us that God tortures puppies, I guess we'd just need to accept it without an explanation, but why believe that unless scripture specifically teaches it? And if it did teach that wouldn't it be reasonable to ask why God might do that?

I'm not debating what appears to be just, I'm debating what I believe the bible reveals. That doesn't mean we can't discuss what appears reasonable in accordance with what has been revealed.

I asked, "Cannot or will not?" which regard to God effectually saving souls.

You are mixing two different matters. You may WILL (desire) for your child to sit down, but you may not WILL (desire) to use irresistible physical force to accomplish that. You are not drawing the distinction between those two. God, according to our view, desires for men to make a choice and he desires them to choose life. No one questions God's ability to irresistibly save someone, we are questioning his will to do so. He may want the rocks to cry out and he may even effectually cause the rocks to do so, but that is only if the free moral creatures choose to refrain.

I asked, "If you, as a father, choose not to use physical force to get your child to submit to your command would it be accurate for me to say that your not strong enough to control your kid? Or your kids will is stronger than yours?"

Same mistake as above. You are blurring the lines between what God desires and what he sovereignly brings to pass. You must acknowledge the difference in God's desires (i.e. I don't want Luke to sin, even-though you do) and what he sovereignly decrees. (Piper refers to this as "the two wills of God."

Well, I see your point, but when I speak of 'few' I'm speaking of those who walk the narrow path, as Jesus spoke of... (whether by their own will, or God's effectual grace). When Jesus used the term 'few' he clearly didn't have babies who die in infancy in mind, so why should we?

So you are equating 'failing' as God allowing free creatures to fail independently of His determination of their failure?

Are you saying God COULD NOT, even if he wanted to, create independently free creatures (free as we define free)?

That statement presumes that the failure of God's creature equals His failure, which is presuming the very point up for debate. To assume that a creature choosing to act contrary to the Creator's expressed desire equals failure on the part of the Creator is unfounded biblically and logically.

But he DID intend the free activity of his creatures...He just doesn't determine their 'free' activity. If He does, then you certainly shouldn't call it 'free.' I believe God has the ability to remain sovereign OVER those free/independent actions while not determining them. You seem to believe the only way he can maintain sovereignty over everything is to determine everything. I think God is bigger than that perspective.

 

Interesting debate, and I have tried to stay out of it because it is going so well, but I have some interesting remarks by R.C. Sproul that directly relate to the discussion, especially Luke's view of God's active participation the reprobation of sinners. It might add to the debate;

Sproul says those who believe in a positive-positive view of both salvation and reprobation are hyper-Calvinists which has been rejected.

Now I will leave you two at it.

 

I wonder how Luke would reply to Sproul's comment, "This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

Maybe that is why I've never actually encountered it in all my study and have a difficult time imagining any notable scholar espousing this view. I know Luke doesn't want me to press him to find others who stand with him on this view, but I must, for in doing so maybe it will help him see he is on a island with very little company.

 

Where does he actually say that God actively works to prevent the gospel from regenerating the non-elect? I don't believe Calvin was known as a double predestinarian.... at least most Reformed scholars I've read don't think so.

Who?

So I can study your position more thoroughly and see what other conclusions scholars who hold to these conclusions draw about God.

Actually I've been doing both... To ask for scholarly support in a debate is pretty standard though Luke. There is nothing underhanded meant by it.

I suspect that you've kind of back yourself into this view because your honest enough of an individual to deal with a text as it is presented. It does APPEAR you are simply replying off the top of your head, so to speak, as you are confronted with various points, but I could be misreading you. If these view aren't unique to you, then it should be pretty simple to refer me to a scholar or two who actually cover the specifics of this particular point of view.

Do you mind giving a brief explanation as to how one can be regenerated prior to hearing the gospel since you are now affirming gospel regeneration?

I guess so... Maybe Sproul's quote provided my Winman will provide some clarity. I believe Sproul agrees with Calvin's particular view on this subject and clearly Sproul is not a double predestinarian. I really don't know what else to say to make it any clearer.

I do appreciate the quotes, and I have read similar ones before, but I think the distinction from what you are arguing and what Sproul and other Calvinists argue is in the WHY, which you think is an 'obvious answer.' Your answer being, "Because if God doesn't actively intervene with various means the proclaimed gospel will certainly regenerate them." But Sproul's answer (and I presume Calvin's answer) would be something like, "Because if God hasn't elected the person and doesn't actively regenerate them at the time of hearing the gospel, these external means (parables/blinding etc) are merely the manifestation of God's judgement upon them." I think Aaron has argued this before. He said something like, "God's hardening isn't to prevent them from being saved, its just a further sign of God's judgement on them." (In fact, I think I remember you make a similar argument in the past)

Sproul and many like him clearly don't think your view is true Reformed doctrine.

I'll guess I'll wait to hear what you have to say to his quote before we move on...

Thanks for the discussion. It has been one of the best on this forum!

 

Luke, I have tried to stay out of this debate because you and Skan are doing so well. I only posted Sproul because it seemed to directly relate to your view.

I would only ask this, why would God need to blindfold a blind person?

If a person could see, but they were in a dark room (no revelation), they would be blind so to speak. Now, if this were the case and God was going to turn on the lights in the room but did not want the person to see, then I could see him putting a blindfold on the person.

To me, this seems to be your argument, although it contradicts Total Inability because the person can see.

That is all I will say, you don't have to answer. I am content to let you and Skan carry on, it has been an interesting thread.