Featured The doctrine of Hardening

Indeed - God is NOT the "cause of His own lament" in Genesis 6 the way Calvinism logically concludes.

Because God "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" and "NOT just the saints".

in Christ,
Bob

 

That is a not-too-subtle detail that is continually in the blind-spot of the Calvinist POV.

in Christ,

Bob

 

No need to "suppose it" - because even Calvinists ADMIT that the "DRAWING of man by God" fully ENABLES the choice that depravity disables.

Thus "I will DRAW ALL men unto Me" John 12:32 destroys the Calvinist argument that "The lost have no choice and cannot accept the Gospel".

Even their own dim view of John 12:32 and John 6 is forced to admit that the "supernatural DRAWING of man by God" enables the choice that depravity disables.

Not at all true -- your point to the salient point in the Calvinist argument and insert it as an "assumption" rather than the key point in dispute to be "tested and proven true".

That is a circular argument in your post.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Apparently you believe Noah was equally evil in his intentions and corruption, but God effectually graced him making him favorable, right? But God grieves all the rest of mankind? Why? Why not just do for them what he did for Noah instead acting upset about it and drowning them? Is God just acting...like putting on a play for us?

God: "Hmmm, I will make the people all think I don't like it this way, when really I designed it too be exactly this way, so I'll pretend to be grieved by all these people but I'll zap this Noah fella and make him more favorable then I'll drown the rest of them. That will show them!"

That doesn't teach responsibility. That teaches fatalism, hopelessness, despair and makes God deceptive at best.

But the scripture forgot to mention it in this context? The grace (provision through an Ark, etc) came after God found favor, not before.

Again, it could only be by God's design that men become disabled by the fall. That doesn't happen by accident. That's like the parent who beats his kid to death saying, "I was his fault for disobeying," as if the parent had no say in the level of punishment he gave.

 

I addressed this misunderstanding of our system in another post...please heed what I wrote because it is vital to correct understanding and thus representation of what we actually believe.

Context. It is not about Calvinism versus Arminianism, its about Jew (apostles and hardened/cut off/stumbling ones) and Gentiles (those being grafted in - brought the gospel light). It's only when you read this from a hyper-individualize perspective and ignore the context of Romans 8-11 that a "Calvinistic" rendering can be supported. The same individuals hardened in this context were being patiently pursued by God for a very long time (Rm 10:21), and though they are currently stumbling, they have not stumbled beyond recovery, and though they are currently blinded and sent a spirit of stupor, they may be provoked to envy by Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and saved. And though they are currently 'cut off' they can leave their unbelief and be 'grafted back in.' That is clearly laid out in Romans 11.

 

Who ever said Esau was hardened before birth?

Judicial hardening is NOT God's causing people to sin (surely one who is denying the divine design of total inability, wouldn't deny this). Judicial hardening is God using someone who is already in rebellion to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through them. God is merely blinding the agent from the obviously revealed truth so that the person will not be convinced and change his course.

This is what Jesus is doing to the Jewish leaders by speaking in parables. He is hardening/blinding them in their rebellion so as to accomplish the Passover on the cross, in the same way God blinded Pharaoh to accomplish the first passover.

Well sure He did. Who denies that? God's purposes are redemptive and glorifying, not condemning.

It doesn't say hardening and salvation. It says, 'has mercy or hardens.' And the FACT that some shown mercy are still condemned and some hardened are saved, proves your dichotomy is false. He is clearly talking about showing mercy to the Gentiles and cutting off Israel, with the exception of the remnant of Israel set apart for the noble purpose of carrying the message to the world!

Oh wow...no way!!! Are you kidding?

Wow. I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion when looking at the entire context together as it all flows together in unison. You don't have to change your hermetical approach right in the middle to 'make it fit.'

All representative of nations...but I don't deny that individuals are in view IN BOTH chapter, only you have to change your approach where as mine is consistently the same.

 

It doesn't fit the Calvinistic system imposed onto this text and thus the lenses with which you read it.

The question is normally asked, "Is this corporate or individual?" Some insist this must be corporate only, or like you above, its about individuals only.

I insist it is both. There are individual and corporate elements here. You cannot, for instance, have a corporate unless there is the individual (Jacob and Esau is the prime example).

Those who wish for only a corporate rendering miss the obvious, that the Bible uses the individual to demonstrate the corporate, but the opposite it true as well!!!

Nations are made up of individuals. I just wish Calvinists would consistently carry this understanding into chapters 10 and 11 when Paul goes on to explain how the individuals in Israel who are being temporarily hardened haven't "stumbled beyond recovery" (vs. 11) and may be provoke to envy and saved (vs. 14) and may be grafted back into the vine if they leave their unbelief (vs. 23-26), thus proving that the individuals spoken of as being hardened in Romans 9 can't be the non-elect reprobates born without hope of ever being saved as Calvinism presumes...but instead is the judicially hardened Jew who God temporarily cut off from the vine (hardened in his rebellious condition) so as to accomplish the crucifixion and ingraft the Gentiles.

"10:21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Where does this verse fit in your 'individual' only approach?

Or if you are bound by chapter and verse divisions and have to remain in Romans 9, how about this SUMMARY of the entire chapter:

"

Rom 9:30 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."​

 

I'll allow my comment on Rom 9 in the other thread suffice...