John 1:9 "enlightens every man"

Language Cop has been off the board recently, as the computer died and we just got a new one in a few hours ago.

Incidentally, I had not seen your post when I posted mine, not having gotten that far.

Ed

 

I wasn't snubbing you brother, I just noticed your post to me.
And yes, all is well here. What of yourself?

I'm not going to do much on these threads, with the exception of Tom's post . It is for me and old and somewhat humurous argument that caming into being from an old thread regarding the blinding of Israel, but me and Tom can agree and disagree as brothers with much love and respect for each other and mean it when we say it.

 

Alllan, this entire question of hardening, blinding and reprobation is a difficult one for me. I have read and re-read Isaiah 6, where God calls Isaiah to prophesy to a rebellious nation, trying to understand why God wants Isaiah to preach, yet tells him that the people won't listen.

Now, there is no question that he does know their response. And there is no question that God does the hardening, blinding and deafening. At some point, he simply "gives them up" to their persistent sin. The debate is over whether God judicially blinds them, et cetera, making it impossible for them to respond, or want to respond; or whether this is just the natural result of persistent rebellion, thus they become so hardened that they are beyond the reach of God's wooing. Or, God simply quits dealing with them at some point.

So, when I read John 12:39-40, and it says they could not believe because he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts so they couldn't see or understand and be converted, it appears to me that blinding and hardening is God's action, designed to prevent them from being converted. God's action also appears to have taken away their free will.

And that gives rise to a number of other questions. What about the ten per cent that he didn't blind or harden? Why them? And what about you and me prior to our conversion? Were we not also in rebellion against God before he saved us? Why did he not give us up? What was the difference. There's got to be more to it than just his foreknowledge.

I confess that I take no pleasure from reading that anyone cannot believe, because God has hardened them. And there are other verses that clearly say they would not.

I know you see this differently, and I understand what you're saying. And both of us will appeal to the same scriptures to reach different conclusions.

As somebody famous once said, this is above my pay grade.

 

True it isn't easy even for the non-cal brother, that there comes a point that God quits dealing with a person, but also allows them to become hardened to Him so that salvation is in fact impossible for them. The fact He 'allows' them to become hardened by the fact He keeps bring them the same message, makes Him the reason they maintian their rejection of His truths and thus Him as well.

Agreed.

Well, I think here you might need to clarify what you mean. I even quoted from John Gill who wouldn't go that far.
Though God allows things and thus is said to be the one doing it because He allows it, is not the same as Him actually causing through force to do something. In both He is the author but only in one is He the cause or reason for something. Thus only in one is He responsible for action done, whether positive/godly or negitive/sin. As a Calvinist I think you understand this aspect already so with that.. If God causes or makes them blind so they can not be saved before they ever willingly reject Him, then we have God being active in the reprobation of man. This is pronounced a heresy even amounst Cals/Reformed.

So in stating that 'there is no question that God does the hardening' we must first ask, and evaluate how God does this and 'why' He does this.

Agreed.

I think #1 and #3 are saying the same things or else one is a little more descriptive than the other. But in either case I agree with both. But again the question must be asked, why? This, if answered, clarifies much or if not, makes many questions abound.

Ok, then 2 questions arise in my mind out from your statement in light of the Reformed view.
1. Is God actively involved in man's reprobation as the text (if take by itself) seems to indicate? IOW- Is God taking steps to ensure some men can not be saved before they have rejected him?

2. And even if we conclude God is NOT actively involved in man's reprobation, then why does God need or have to take these steps if man is dead (in the Reformed understanding) and therefore blind as well. Thus if blind and dead already in their natural he will not ever desire nor seek to be saved - so why is God doing this again or even more so, to 'keep him from being saved'? In the Reformed view, would not his natural tendancy be to never want to besaved because he would never believe God was telling the truth?

It isn't that their resposiblitly of will is taken away, but more that they have chosen what the want to believe and God 'cements' them in their choice, just as He does with believers. When they have chosen to reject God's truths and God does as scripture states, "give them over to their sins', then God not only allows them to keep their choice but firmly sets them in it, after they have believed or not.

It is pretty plain to me when we look back at Isaiah and those which were being spoken of.. they were already rebellious to the truth given them and thus to continue speaking the same things they have already rejected only brings more hard heartedness and bitterness against it. Therefore those who were not in a rebellious state but already believing were softening more to the truths yet to come that they in the appointed time would believe completely in who this Jesus was but still not yet completely revealed.

True but not all types of rebellion are equally the same. Just like not all sin is equally the same as another. In essense yes, but in their various aspects and extent, no. Sin is sin whether large or small but we see in scripture a difference is the severity of judgments against certain sins compared to others. If they were all equally the same in all aspects then all would suffer the same severity of judgment but we know they do not. another example probably better than what I just said is this: You can be in a state of a rebellious life (as an unsaved person), and believe those 'non-saving spiritual truths' (sin, His righteousness and the judgment to come) but it is that belief you have given in those basic truths already revealed to you that God will bring even more so that in the fulness of time you will believe and the opposite is true also, that others will not.

I agree :thumbs:

If you did, I would wonder about your salvation. but as you do not I have no question

I laugh everytime I see you post that. I love it.

 

Tom Butler and Allan,

I really enjoyed reading your exchange. You both are a great example of how to discuss Biblical truth from different perspectives.

If I may add something to the conversation...and Allan, I don't think you'll agree with the underlying theology, but grant the suppositions if only for argument's sake.

I believe in total depravity which, in effect, says that mankind is dead in their trespasses and sins and unable to respond to God without His prior active intervention (Regeneration).

So, I think I would say that hardening is both active and passive on God's part. God passively hardens by not softening. In other words, a passive hardening means that He won't intervene through the Holy Spirit to regenerate someone.

Active hardening, I think, is something that God does to a person who is already hardened passively and, thereby, adds judgment upon him (or her). It would seem God does this to people He wants to make an example of--Pharaoh the persons in your previous discussion, etc.

Even as a Calvinist, I'm uncomfortable saying that anyone is beyond salvation. I'm uncomfortable because we simply can't know who are the elect and who are not.

Perhaps it's possible that God will actively harden someone and then, after much sin of their own free will, that person will be regenerated and saved--thereby giving God an immense amount of glory.

Anyway, that's my $ .02 while thinking out loud through my fingers at 3:00 AM EST.

Many Blessings to you both!

The Archangel

PS. Allan, I and the family are doing very well. God has richly blessed us far beyond my wildest dreams. I certainly don't deserve anything of what I have been given.

 

Allan and Archangel,

I'm going to think out loud here, which means I've not given much thought to what I'm about to write. (Don't say it, I know what you're thinking!) But I know you both will be eager to guide me in the right direction if I get off base.

As a Calvinist, I believe that God saves the elect out of lost humanity, and leaves the rest alone. When God acts to save the elect, he brings to bear everything necessary to accomplish that salvation--regeneration, illumination, conviction, enabling, giving repentance and faith.

I also believe that unless God does those things, no one will be saved. And that the lost will continue to simply do what comes naturally. That is, they will continue to act according to their sinful nature. I believe that they cannot be saved, and cannot want to be saved.

If that's the case, then, why does God harden and blind? Why does he need to? This is my human reasoning coming into play. Allan asked the same question.

Archangel may have the answer, that God hardens by not softening. He blinds by not illuminating.

And Allan may also have the answer.

I recognize that these two answers are not completely compatible, but I don't think they need to be resolved. The scriptures appear to teach both.

I've maintained for a long time that the harshest judgment God can bring on any sinner is to leave him alone. It means God is not dealing with them, and they are under terrible condemnation.

 

Tom (and Allan)

I like what you wrote, especially this:

I think you are correct and I have no real disagreement. I do have a slight change to offer. When you say "...they cannot be saved and cannot want to be saved" I think the "cannot want to be saved" is right on. I'm still not comfortable with the "cannot be saved." I would only add (and you may be intending this all along) they cannot be saved by their own efforts. Because, at one point, I'm sure the Apostle Paul looked to be far beyond the reach of Grace. Yet, God regenerated, illumined, convicted, enabled, etc. him.

This, however, really is the question:

I've been preaching through Matthew (today 8/9/09 I am through Matt 13:52) and it seems like Jesus' condemnation(s) of the cities of His day might have some clues here.

Jesus says :

I think we see degrees of punishment here. But it would seem that Jesus' preaching (and the subsequent rejection of it by the Jews--the Scribes and Pharisees) actually served to further harden the people of Jesus' day so that they could expect a more severe judgment. After all, Sodom was incredibly wicked, but they didn't have Jesus' preaching or His miracles to call them to repentance. The contemporaries of Jesus could be expected to suffer a greater judgment precisely because they had what Sodom didn't--Christ preaching, teaching, and performing miracles in their very midst.

So, in this case it would appear that a further hardening is intended to make a point--a theological one--and it is intended to glorify God even in a harsher sentence.

Also, I think this passage suggests that, while God is absolutely sovereign, man is still responsible. Even though the Jews of Jesus' day had not been given eyes to see or ears to hear (see Matthew 13), they are still responsible for their hard and dull hearts.

So, in a sense, I think God does leave them alone. He leaves them to themselves to degenerate further, requiring a more severe punishment and giving more praise to God for His justice.

Allan's quote: "When they have chosen to reject God's truths and God does as scripture states, "give them over to their sins', then God not only allows them to keep their choice but firmly sets them in it, after they have believed or not." and my statement you summarized "that God hardens by not softening. He blinds by not illuminating" are not, ultimately, incompatible. At least, I don't think so.

The doctrine of reprobation is so hard because so many people assume the wrong thing. The common perception is that we are all "middle of the road;" neither good nor bad. People then think God reprobates some and saves some. But, in reality, we are not middle of the road; we are "dead in our trespasses and sins" and are therefore already facing a reprobate faith. God, then, does not actively choose to reprobate anyone. He passively chooses to reprobate people only in that He does not actively choose to regenerate them.

At least, that's my current understanding of reprobation/election. I think hardening is tied-up in here somewhere too.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I'll jump back in here either tonight or tomorrow, because there are many points I agree with both of you, some points I would modify, and very few that I disagree with.

Stay tuned...more to come :smilewinkgrin: