What every anti-calvinist needs to know

Hardened vs unable.

"Unable" implies lacking the ability to perform, not having the skill or the wherewithall to hear and believe.

"Hardened", implies having the ability but not using it due to some other influencing force or condition such as lack of desire to do, or preconditioned to respond differently than normal or than expected.

In John 6, the people were hardened to not be responsive to the Messiah. Their pre-condition is they were expecting a Conquerer to come riding in on his white charger brandishing his two-edged sword. What they got was a helpless, innocent, infant born of a virgin, who grew up among them so as to not be noticed until he was an adult. One who did not own or carry a sword of any kind. "Har, Har, you expect us to believe you are the conquering Messiah?" ...HARDENED!

 

By this logic Ken you would have to believe that the thousands in his audience were "given to Christ by the Father." Of course you don't believe that. You believe "the elect" are given to Christ. Is all of Christ's audience elect? No, so your argument is not applicable to me anymore than it is to you. I'm not arguing that Jesus is not speaking to the entire audience, I'm arguing, just like you do, that there are only certain people who have been enabled from that audience to come to Christ. The question is: to whom is he refering? You believe it is those God as individually elected to beleive and be saved. I believe it is those God has given to Christ to be trained and sent out to preach the gospel to the world. You have yet to address this because you are attacking a straw man which ironically is an attack upon your own interpretation of this text as well.

How does that relate to my statement: "Not all believers are "given to Jesus" while he was in the flesh. That is to be trained by him personally. This was reserved for apostles." You assume once again that "those given by the Father" are in reference to all saved people, but I'm arguing that not all saved people were "given to Christ" in the way this text obviously means.

Granted, I can see how one might take the words "given to Christ" and take that to mean every single person who is ever saved was given to Christ by the Father in a spiritual sense. But, what I'm asking you to do Ken is consider the possiblity that Christ is not speaking in a universal spiritual sense, but in a literal down to earth manner. He could be explaining, "Only those the Father has given to me to train and send out from Israel can come to me, it has not been granted for everyone of you to come but only those who are drawn by the Father for this special task. The rest of you are blinded, deafened and hardened for a time. All of those who have been given will come because God has chosen them to be his mouthpiece to the world."

Ken, if you are objective and honest with this passage in light of the whole counsel of God's word I think you'll see that is not only a possible translation but the most likely.

I think Yelsew answered this well, but let me indulge a bit more if I may.

I agree there is the same result, which is why I don't agree with Total Depravity. Both Hardening and Total Depravity teachings claim that they are reason that man doesn't believe, see, hear or understand. Hardening is clearly taught throughout scripture, Total depravity is purely a Calvinistic dogma created to complete a logical but erroneous system of thought.

Total Depravity teaches man is unable from birth to see hear, understand and believe because of the effects of the Fall which are imputed by God's plan.

Hardening teaches that man BECOMES unable because of their continuous rebellion to God's ways eventhough man fully understood what God demanded of him.

Look at Acts 28:24: Some were persuaded by what he said, but others did not believe. 25 Disagreeing among themselves, they began to leave after Paul made one statement: "The Holy Spirit correctly spoke through the prophet Isaiah to your forefathers 26 when He said, Go to this people and say: 'You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive. 27 For this people's heart has grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and be converted--and I would heal them.' 28 Therefore, let it be known to you that this saving work of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!"

Notice what I highlighted here. Its says, "OTHERWISE" which shows that had Israel not been hardened they "might see, hear, understand and be converted."

What about Total Depravity? If Israel was Totally depraved why would God harden them? Why make a blind man blinder? And if they weren't hardened they were still Total Depraved, right? So this sentence would be incorrect if TD was true. Plus look at what it says in the last verse about the Gentiles. "They will Listen." If they were Total Depraved and unable to see, hear, understand just like Israel, why would Paul think he had any better hope persuading them? It just doesn't fit.

Again, you assume that these words a merely about salvation. Do you deny that this statment is true:

The Bible also teaches that from the Jews God reserved a remnant who were not hardened (Romans 10-11). So we know in Jesus' audience there were those who were being hardened (unable) and those who were the remnant (enabled).

I think you must acknowledge that it is true. You must argue that it doesn't relate to John 6 which I think is impossible to do in light of the given texts.

 

Sorry, Bill, but you've done lost me. I subscribe to the KISS method - "Keep It Simple Stupid". You'll have to find someone who can follow all of these eddies and currents in your theology to argue with. I have stated my understanding and I find nothing in what you say that would cause me to change it. For one thing your argument is simply too complicated for me to follow. And if I can't understand your argument, I am certainly not going to agree with it. I'll stick to what makes Biblical sense to me. Sorry, but a nice try anyway.

 

Wow. The person who quotes Spurgeon ad nauseum complains that Bill's comments are too difficult. I understood his position the first time I read it. It doesn't seeem too hard or too complicated to follow. Seems that the main crux of his argument is this: What if Christ was talking to a specific audience instead of a universal audience in the passages in question?

That's not too abstract, I don't think.

 

I agree with you Scott, Bills text is clear!

 

Well, I understand that. I have honestly answered Bill's argument that I believe the audience was the many thousands listening, then he accuses me of ignoring his argument, so I honestly answer his argument again that I believe the audience was the many thousands listening, then he accuses me of ignoring his argument, and on and on. Therefore, either Bill is stringing me along and not being honest, or else I simply don't understand his argument. Since I don't won't to accuse Bill of being dishonest and stringing me along, my only alternative is that I don't understand his argument. I am sure the problem is on my end and not on his as to why I can't answer his argument in such a way that he will feel that I am honestly answering his argument.

Since one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result, and since I do not want to be considered insane, I will simply stop trying to answer his argument.

 

5  When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6  And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7  Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

Maybe Bro. Bill is talking about the many thousand Christ fed here as being his immediate audience. I would certainly agree, since I didn't get to eat of this particular meal.

Bro. Dallas

 

Ken,

You are correct in your statement that I'm not trying to "string you along" or "be dishonest" with you. Apparently you just don't understand me. I don't understand why you can't understand, but I won't doubt your testimony. Maybe I'm taking too big of bites at one time. Let's keep it more simple.

1. I also believe Jesus was talking to the thousands in his audience, just like you do. I've never said otherwise.

2. That audience of thousands are Jews as the text shows.

3. Most of the Jews have been temporarily hardened by God as recorded throughout the OT and NT

4. Hardening, according to scripture, makes one unable to see, hear, understand or believe the gospel message.

5. Some of the Jews were not hardened but were "drawn to Christ," "given by the Father", "enabled to come" or appointed and called to carry out a divine task. This task was much like the task of the Prophets in the OT, it was the task of apostleship. (There were other Jews that were also apart of this remnant who were not hardened but were not considered to be apostles either, but I don't believe they are being discussed in this passage)

Does this make more since now? If not, what part doesn't make sense? Ken, I really don't care if you never agree with me, I just want to you acknowledge that you understand and that this interpretation is (1) an impossible translation of the text because of (a)(b) and (c) OR (2) this is a possible translation though you may disagree with it.

 

I disagree with what you are saying because you force upon scripture something that it does not say. How do Gentiles who never had the law and oracles of God suddenly have an ability that the nation chosen of God did not have? Well, God 'forced' blindness upon His people so that the Gentiles could be grafted in.

First you claim that man is not totally depraved, when scripture everywhere testifies to the fact that man is a worm.

Next, you claim that certain of the Jews who were specially chosen to be apostles were elected, yet all other people who subsequently beleive must believe by a 'free-will' which is imaginary, in imagining this 'free-will' you disregard the fact that the prayer of Christ in John 17 is more than enough as mediator to deliver all who since those days have been delivered, thus still leaving all hinged upon the will of God and nowhere found to be decided by the will of the creature man, not even by Christ's will, but always according to the will of him who sent him.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

I know Ken would interpret my response as "moving the goal posts," but I have to say this is not what I have said. I never said that the Israelites were unable to respond to God. Matt. 23:37 specifically shows that God longed to saved Israel, but they were unwilling -- this definately implies the ability for them to be willing. They only become unable when God hardened them temporarily and for a specific purpose.

Calvinists seem to be arguing that no Israelites were ever saved because of verses like Romans 3:10 that says, "no one is righteous" and "no one seeks God." You must recognize that there were no Jews who were perfect but there were still some who were declared Justified. Was that by the Law? NO. But because of their faith. So, while all were sinners some still were saved through faith. Look at Heb. 11 and see a sampling of Israel who was willing and who were justified by God.

You assume that worm = Total Depravity. That's not supported in scripture, its just rhetoric

Dallas you combining the election of the Apostles with your view of election of individual unto salvation. You must admit they are two seprate issue. Even in your system you must recognize that not everyone who is elected to believe unto salvation have been elected to be apostles. You apply verses that have to do with election unto apostleship to election unto salvation. For the apostles these two concepts are closely related because they are called to both at the same time.

 

More rhetoric for all politically correct brethren.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Brother Bill,

If God hardens temporarily as you say, then He is guilty of violating man's free will to accomplish His purposes.

He certainly has every right to do this.

If God violates man's free will through hardening to accomplish his purposes, how is this different from God electing a man to salvation, effectually calling that person, and giving that man the will to believe?

Perhaps you could give us a timeline or chart that would show your hardening theory in its historical context so we could grasp the totality of God's hardening.

 

The goodness and Mercy of God "hardens" those who choose to refuse it - and softens those who choose to accept it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So, really, salvation is not by Grace, but by the choices of men. huh.

The goodness of God leadeth you to repentance.

 

Then Calvinists do not have the mind of Christ who tells men to repent and believe, knowing they have the ability. Who is in contrast to God?

if the duty, then how is that duty carried out without the ability (see 5 above) </font>[/QUOTE]You nailed the major objection to Calvinism. They now will turn to Romans 9 and begin to use Paul's diatribe objection to hardening as a defense of our objection to Total depravity as if they are one in the same. This is the root of their error. </font>[/QUOTE]Would you say then, that every single human being has the ability to obey all of God's commands at all times? How about loving God with all our strength, mind, heart? How about praying at all times or living by faith all our lives or most of all "Be ye Perfect"?
Do you think we possess the ability to practice all of these after we become born again? Can a believer's sanctification process be complete here on earth? Certainly NOT! Do we have the command to strive for it? Certainly! Does it mean we have the ability? I don't think so!!! Yours in the Lord Christ....

 

Any arguement taken to its extremes makes the arguers appear foolish. 'the point is that man was given the ability and man refuses to use the ability. With man having the ability, God requires man to use the ability. God also knows man's limitations, He afterall made man. The fact that man cannot at all times to the unmost that God requires, does not in any manner indicate that man does not have the ability. God did not make man equal to Himself, but merely in the image of himself. Thus man remains reliant on God!

We have the ability and the empowerment in the Holy Spirit!

Depends on what you mean by "sanctification process". I believe that one is sanctified in his belief in Jesus, it is that belief that sets him apart from the unbelievers.

Where does it say, "be ye sanctified"?

You may not have children, but one does not command their children to do that which the child has no ability to accomplish!

I hope so!

 

Well, how would you define man's 'ability' then? Maybe all 'that man can' do 'simetimes' to 'the utmost all that God requires'?

We certainly do have the empowerment in the Holy Spirit by which we can live a holy life. But can we reach sinless perfection in this life? Why or why not?

The devil certainly believes in Jesus. Is he also 'sanctified in his belief in Jesus'? I am sure you didn't mean that. What did you mean?

I do have a precious little boy as a matter of fact and since we jumped into illustrations, let me ask you this: suppose your child runs straight toward a busy highway, would you grab him or let him run? Would you be willing to interfere with his 'free will'?

Yours in the Lord Christ

 

Amen and Amen!!!

Most excellent illustration of an eternal truth.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The goodness and Mercy of God "hardens" those who choose to refuse it - and softens those who choose to accept it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the "claim" of Calvinism when confronted with this truth.

Like the one who wins the lottery "claiming" that they "EARNED every penny" by holding out their hand.

But their neighbors don't buy that logic. They know a gift horse when they see one. (Their kids also know it).

Romans 2:4 The goodness of God leadeth you to repentance.

Yes - God's Goodness leads to repentance but this is a "warning" to those who are slighting that "goodness" shown Them as Romans 2 says

Romans 2:
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

Well - if they did not know it before - they know it when Paul tells them. But notice - they are not exactly "doing well" in that regard according to vs 3. So they too could be "hardened" by that very same "goodness" if they choose to rebell against it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I do have a precious little boy as a matter of fact and since we jumped into illustrations, let me ask you this: suppose your child runs straight toward a busy highway, would you grab him or let him run? Would you be willing to interfere with his 'free will'?</font>[/QUOTE]The child acting in accordance with its own free will is not what I was attempting to illustrate. Though I agree with your illustration, you did not comment to mine, and your illustration is not a rebuttle because it establishes totally different scenario.

In my illustration, it is the parent commanding the child to do that which the child has no ability to perform. In yours, the child is acting in accordance with his ability to perform.