Sovereignty of God in the Conversion of Saul

I've been taking this up at every turn yet you seem to be avoiding the argument.

Sure, Saul was one of the remnant of Israel who was chosen for a "noble purpose," while the rest of Israel were being hardened in their rebellion.

I believe both Calvinistic and scholarly non-Calvinists would support this view.

Sure, he could. He could do like he did with Thomas and physically reveal himself to every doubter, or blind every anti-Christian on a road, or have every rebellious believer swallowed by a fish, or do whatever outward sign that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever. But clearly God is pleased by faith and has chosen that to be the means through which salvation is applied.

Even those of us who affirm Libertarian Freewill acknowledge that God has in the past and may in the future intervene with circumstances (signs and wonders or whatever) to ensure a specific outcome...(i.e. inspiration of scripture, crucifixion, etc)...but to suggest that EVERY circumstance, outcome, thought, evil intent, heinous crime and sinful act is likewise determined by God only serves to (1) undermine the unique and divine attributes of those acts which SHOULD be attributed to God and (2) impugns God's Holy and sinless nature by making him appear culpable for originating sin.

 

They were not... Who made up the early church? Who was it that was saved, 3000 on one day, 5000 on another day, and "added daily to their numbers," and "even the priests..."? God did a great work amongst Israel, though certainly not a complete work. His work continues to this day, and there are Messianic Jews that trust Christ for salvation. I know many...

This seems to be one of your very favorite lines for debate use. But you are almost always incorrect when you use it. It IS the semantics and fine lines of distinction that separate Calvinistic and scholarly non-Calvinists.

That is true to an extent, but I would suggest that God reveals Himself to us via the Holy Spirit and through that, draws us to Himself, just as the Word says. Rare is the truly physical demonstration of God's glory in our modern world, but it does exist. I have heard multiple testimonies from credible sources that say so, and nothing they have said contradicts Scripture in any way. Essentially, God will do what only God can do, and that will be whatever it is that He wills to do, that is also not apart from accordance to His Word.

Could you please demonstrate libertarian free will from Scriptural exegesis? I'm not talking about 2-word proof-texting here, but a decent couple of paragraphs of true biblical exposition that shows that we humans are truly as "free" as you suggest. For the record, I can do so easily for a position of God's sovereignty. I'm not at all sure you can do likewise, which is why I ask. I understand the logical arguments for free will in humans, but I'm wanting to see the Scriptures expounded that say so. Scripture always trumps logic -- or so it seems at the end of the day when we come face to face with God.

As a side note, your user name is interesting, though spelled wrong from the Greek... Is that your intent? Just curious...

 

I think you may have misunderstood. I wasn't attempting to deny the conversion of many Jews following the ascension of Christ and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. I was speaking about the common, and widely accepted doctrine of Israel's judicial hardening, where by God was blinding the Jews ('spirit of stupor' etc) while grafting in the Gentiles.

As Paul explains the Jews (generally speaking) were stumbling over and rejecting Christ, while the Jews were (generally speaking) were accepting Christ...."What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." (which yes, is where I got my name)

Well, I believe if you really understood scholarly Arminians views in regard to election, hardening and salvation you would conclude differently. This is just my attempt to help you see things from our perspective. I sometimes do that by trying to point out those things in which we really do have in common but are often accused of not having in common. (i.e. "all men deserve hell," "God is sovereign over all things," "God can and does effectually change the will of man to accomplish His purpose.")

What "extent" of what I said isn't true according to Calvinism or you personally?

Either of us can google the topic and find countless such proofs supporting both sides and certainly I could point you to a few with which best represents my personal views, but what interests me is that you didn't actually address the argument I already presented, but instead deferred the conversation to put a burden on me to supply a full exegesis to support my views. We can go there eventually, but let's first deal with the critique and argument I already submitted, okay?

I'll restate it for you and await a response:

"Even those of us who affirm Libertarian Freewill acknowledge that God has in the past and may in the future intervene with circumstances (signs and wonders or whatever) to ensure a specific outcome...(i.e. inspiration of scripture, crucifixion, etc)...but to suggest that EVERY circumstance, outcome, thought, evil intent, heinous crime and sinful act is likewise determined by God only serves to (1) undermine the unique and divine attributes of those acts which SHOULD be attributed to God and (2) impugns God's Holy and sinless nature by making him appear culpable for originating sin."

 

That more detailed explanation I'll agree with.

Again, we're on the same page here.

You, like others who have a position apart from the one I hold seem to think that I've not spent much time examining the opposing view, for I've not been swayed to join forces, and implied is, "If I had truly understood that position, I would have surely changed my mind..." I reject that sort of thinking. I've read and well understand the position of Arminianism. In fact, I've been using a similar point in several debate threads here, that the two positions are not at all that far apart, and that God's sovereignty is necessary to both Arminianism and Calvinism. Is is the extent and timing of that sovereignty, coupled with the idea that God responds in a synergistic way versus wills in a monergistic way that separates the two doctrines.

I may be one of the rare individuals who have actually read the works of Jacob Arminius. But, at the end of the day, I find him unconvincing, and even without the benefit of Calvin, from the Scriptures, I would have argued against his position much like happened at the Synod of Dort.

I believe that I already explained my "extent" in the post where I responded to you. But to recapitulate, I suggested that God did still reveal Himself to us in various means, and while faith is a very critical aspect, it is not, as is often pressed by Arminians, the sole arbiter of what causes God to react. Hence my "to an extent" comment. To reiterate, you need God to respond to human faith in order to make your doctrine work. I do not. Without God's response to human faith, Arminian doctrine falls flat and it is not much more than softened Calvinism.

Is it God's previnient grace as or is it the human faith that God sees then acts upon to dispense that grace? Can't have it both ways, and it isn't both ways in Scripture.

I well understand that we can do a search and find arguments. I'm asking YOU to back up your position on human libertarian freedom,that you clearly presented, with Scriptural exposition. If you can, you may be one of the first to do so successfully.

 

As do I...and I'm equally as ignored when such accusations are directed toward me. I wasn't meaning to insult your scholarship of the subject matter, but only to point out the sheer shortage of "scholarly" material from the non-Calvinistic perspective that is utilized in forums such as these. Either way, certainly we can both admit we have more to learn about the other's perspective, regardless of how much knowledge we have obtained to this point?

And I'm asking you to address the argument I've already presented first and then we can move on to that...

Okay, as a compromise, I'll back up my previously ignored statement in hopes that you'll address it this time...

I'll divide my statement into two parts:

1: "Even those of us who affirm Libertarian Freewill acknowledge that God has in the past and may in the future intervene with circumstances (signs and wonders or whatever) to ensure a specific outcome...(i.e. inspiration of scripture, crucifixion, etc)"

This is a statement that needs no biblical support. It simply acknowledges that WE affirm God ability to effectually accomplish his purposes and lists biblical examples of when God did just that. I don't think we have a disagreement here, do we?

2: "...but to suggest that EVERY circumstance, outcome, thought, evil intent, heinous crime and sinful act is likewise determined by God only serves to (1) undermine the unique and divine attributes of those acts which SHOULD be attributed to God and (2) impugns God's Holy and sinless nature by making him appear culpable for originating sin."

Calvinists are the ones who make the claim that "God has decreed whatsoever that comes to pass" and use examples of God's divine interventions in the past as proof texts to support such a view, so wouldn't the burden be on them, for instance to make the link between (1) God divinely intervened to ensure the crucifixion and (2) God likewise intervenes to ensure every sinful choice of mankind?

In other words, how do I "provide biblical support" to disprove a Calvinist presumption upon the text?

 

Whether or not God can or cannot break through certain hard hearts is not the issue. The issue is does He always choose to. While God's mercy and grace are great, they are not without limits. We are told that first pharaoh hardened his heart but only after many times did God finalize it. Also in 2Thess 2:10b-12 we have this;
because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

While God does have great patients they are not without end. Paul was pressed and so are well, but we are not forced. Some accept and many reject and are sealed in that rejection. It used to be called sinning away the day of grace.

 

There is some distinction. The apostles saw him and believed, but blessed are those who DO NOT SEE but still believe (FAITH).

Find the most notable atheist in the world and if God wanted to reveal himself to the guy to remove all doubt of His existance that would change his mind, but would that be faith? Saving faith is not just seeing something and believing it exists, as even the demons believe and shutter. Saving faith (that which pleases God) is a devotion, love and commitment to Him who remains unseen.

 

True, faith is not believing the facts of the bible or even believing that Jesus is who the bible says even though we have not seen Him. If that were the case then none of the apostles could be saved. They all saw Him. Faith is what moves someone to do something. In other words every time we get into our car and start it we start it by faith. We do not set in the house and just believe it will start, no we go and apply what we believe will happen if we turn the key. Here in is why so many today in the church are lost. Yes they believe, they admit sin (confess) , they pray, and they have prayed a prayer of faith, but they believe in believing instead of acting on what they believe. The remain lost. The devil believes and trembles.The bible says this;
Hebrews 11:1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
In other words faith has evidence because it is not just a belief, but because it comes from substance and that evidence is that those who are in that faith live the life that the faith requires. Just like starting the car.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
True biblical faith is the surrendering of ones heart to the one they claim to believe in. In other words at salvation Jesus becomes Lord not just Savior because those who come are coming broken over their sin to follow Him as Lord.