Why bring up hardening?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by William C, May 5, 2003.

  1. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many on this board apparently get disgusted with me because I continue to bring up the issue of hardening.

    Please understand why I do this.

    1. One of the biggest objections/questions that almost every believer has against Calvinism is this:

    How can God rightly judge mankind with eternity in hell for not fulfilling a requirement that they are not even given the ability to fulfill.

    This is an objection to Total Depravity. The belief that mankind does not have the ability to respond to the call of gospel message.

    2. Almost every Calvinists turns to Romans 9:19-24 as a response.

    The problem is that this passage is not about Total Depravity. As verse 20 clearly points out, this passage is about HARDENING.

    Therefore, Paul is not using diatribe here to anticipate an argument against the doctrine of Total depravity. That is, he is not arguing that God is just to condemn man for something they were never given the ability to do.

    Instead, Paul is arguing that God is just to harden Israel.

    Therefore, the major objection that most believers have against Calvinism is still unanswered. Even most Calvinists I have known had to grapple with this objection before adopting these views, and rightly so. This is a major hurdle. But most are convinced by Romans 9 because they read it thinking that these verses are answering that objection, but that is not what this is about.

    It's about God's temporary and purposeful hardening of a group of people who rejected God message for generations. I believe that if a Calvinist can come to understand that simple truth and be willing to remove the Calvinistic lenses by which he views all the rest of scripture he will see that the objection that would have kept him from adopting this teaching in the first place remains unanswered.
     
  2. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    This topic doesn't disgust me brother, I think it is awesome that you have acheived over 1100 posts from this one topic [​IMG]

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  3. rufus

    rufus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps Romans 9, 10, and 11 ought to be considered in light of the type of meaning of the whole Roman letter.

    Exegetically, in Romans, Paul is explaining Salvation. He begins with condemnation. He proceeds with justification, then sanctification and glorification. He notes Israel's past, present and future in light of their election by God. He ends by discussing consecration.

    Paul was answering either a real or hypothetical question in chapters 9-11: If God elected Israel to be His chosen people, then why isn't all Israel saved? Part of Paul's answer has to do with faith righteousness vs. works righteousness. In addition, Paul states that not all Israel is Israel. Only Israel who has the faith of Abraham is Israel. Therefore, not all Jews (in Israel) will be saved.

    Specifically, Romans 9 is about the Sovereignty of God in choosing those of faith in Israel. Chapter 10 is about Israel's rejection of Christ. And Chapter 11 is about Israel's rejection not being total and the purpose of her rejection (the salvation of Gentiles).

    God's hardening of Israel is predicated upon the premise of her acceptance by God in the exodus from Egypt and the giving of His commands to her at Sinai.

    The pure Arminian scheme falls to pieces when Romans 9-11 is considered within the textual constructions of the corresponding type of meaning of the whole of Romans, as well as the textual constructions of the component meanings in the pericopes of Romans.

    Romans 9-11 corresponds beautifully with Paul's holistic message in the letter.

    rufus [​IMG]
     
  4. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Excuse me? Arminianism is based on Faith of the individual which makes one an Abrahamic believer.

    Arminianism is not based on divine choice, but rather divine providence (provid-ence) in which God provides the means by which man can come to have faith, and God has done all the work. It is the work of the Father unto belief. The Father requires no belief, he is the object of belief. But all the work is done, completed by Jesus upon the cross of atonement. There is nothing man do for his own salvation except weigh the evidence and believe. Believing is not a work, so salvation cannot be of works. Abraham's deeds were not what saved him, it was his faith in God that was counted as righteousness before God. That is why God established his covenant in Abraham.

    If a Calvinist would honestly look at the whole of scripture instead of homesteading on a select few scriptures, he would see that it is God who provided all that is necessary for man to believe and thus be saved by grace through faith. It is not God's imputed faith in God that saves man. It is man's derived faith in God that brings salvation.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    This very much reminds me of Deism, the idea that God set everything in motion but now He is hands off, that's it now up to man to make the best of his situation in the crapshoot of life that he is dealt.

    How sad that anyone who claims to be a Christian would have such a view of Almighty God. [​IMG]

    It is truly sad when a person who claims to be a Christian promotes an obviously man-centered religion. [​IMG]
     
  6. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Brother Dallas... You brought up a very good point with that many posts he doesn't even know what he believes!... I know this about the Calvinist and Primitive Baptist brethren and those of our persuasion... "WE KNOW WHAT WE BELIEVE... AND BACK DOWN TO NONE!" You others are free to waver at WILL... Oh no there's that word again... Free to waver at will?... Did you get it? :eek: [​IMG] ... Oops!... Brother Glen [​IMG] ROFLOL :D
     
  7. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heaven forbid we take a humble approach, knowing what we believe, but having an open enough mind to admit that we may not be completely right about certain things.

    Such an attitude was found by Mr. Arminius. Perhaps the Calvinists, Primitive Baptists, and those of your "persuasion" would do well adopting a similar attitude.
     
  8. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Well excuse me Scott the Arminian brethren are just reeking in humility... Is that a hoot or what? :rolleyes: ... Hey I'm dying here... Being among all you pious brethren! [​IMG] ... Some one please start a thread on humility!... Brother Glen :D
     
  9. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let us review. We have your post that was mentioned, then the post I began on Arminius' view of eternal security, where he admitted that he was still learning about the Bible and could possibly be wrong on such things.

    I believe the information speaks for itself.
     
  10. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rufus, of all the Calvinists who replied to this thread you are the only one who attempted any kind thought out response, so I will respond to you likewise and give the attention to the others that they deserve. [​IMG]

    I pretty much agree with everything you wrote up to the paragraph that said, "The pure Arminian scheme falls to pieces when Romans 9-11 is considered within the textual constructions of the corresponding type of meaning of the whole of Romans, as well as the textual constructions of the component meanings in the pericopes of Romans. "

    What?!?! This is total unfounded. You simply state the obvious observations about the book of Romans, with which we agree, and draw the conclusion that Arminianism fails because of them. This absurd and most definiately doesn't address my post.

    The big objection to Calvinism still goes unrefuted.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And who is responsible for man's inability? Man himself. Man sinned and brought this woe on himself.

    The lack of understanding and acceptance of the Biblical doctrine of the inability of man is based on man's pride. Man does not want to admit that he can play absolutely no role in his salvation. He wants to be able to claim at least some small contribution - even as small as simply nodding his head to "accept" Christ by his own will and effort.

    The basic problem with Arminianism, once the curtain is pulled back on it, is simply human pride.
     
  12. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a copout to those who would compromise to say to the man that declares the truth without apology to say he is not humble, he is contentious, etc.

    No one wants the preacher to speak from his heart, they would rather hear with each sermon, 'I think this is right, but I could be wrong' This kind of preacher brings up two thoughts to me:

    1) Is he reading the word of truth or of man?
    2) Has he any conviction that any thing is true, or does he doubt even the Word of God.

    Those that I know of the Sovereign Grace camp who declare the word out without apology I thank God for; for truth is not afraid to be laid on the table for all the world to see, investigate, to scrutinize, it is man who does not wish to be scrutinized. The word of truth goes beyond the flesh and seeks to enter into the soul and by the one who is the searcher of the hearts of men it brings out those secret sins we desire to hold to and causes us to cry unto God to purge us. If we tell the people this and this and that, but I may be wrong, it breeds distrust of the word of God and men develop the idea (false as it is) that truth is relevant. If I declare the truth with out apology and makes men to search the scripture, even if I am proved wrong it will have proven beneficial to they who have searched God's word and it will vindicate God's word while putting me in my place. This is what men fear; all men. That they will be found wrong, then they dance with their feet and speak great swelling words then they say 'This may not be right.' Speak out the Word of God as it is spoken in your heart; where the truth of it is not, honestly speak this out and when the light of Grace reveals more truth to you then you can be sure it is time to speak that out; do not speak of God as possible wrong. 'What I speak to you in private, preach publicly'

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  13. Jacob

    Jacob
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    My experience with Non Calvinists has been quite the opposite. They want to give man some ability to choose because they'd rather blame man for the bad stuff than God.

    Jacob.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep. See there's the problem. In a misguided effort to somehow "protect" God(as if the Creator needs protecting by puny, sin-soaked man) from being blamed for the "bad", man must also set up the scenario to take at least some credit in producing the "good".

    Thanks for helping to bring that point to light, Jacob. [​IMG]
     
  15. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are wrong on several levels:

    One, you assume that man becomes inable because of sin without considering who it was who deemed that sin would cost man that ability. In other words, who is the one who decided the consequences of Adam's eating a piece of forbidden fruit? God.

    Two, if you insist that Total Depravity was the sentence given to all mankind because of our representatives sin then God is left holding the bag for the condemnation of the non-elect, for it was his sentence of removing man's ability to respond while still holding them responsible for their response that is considered unjust. This, in fact, is the heart of the objection which still goes unaddressed. Romans 9 is your only defense, but as I've clearly shown Paul is not defending Total Depravity in this text, he is defending God's judicial and temporary hardening of Israel. Therefore, Calvinism is still left with a huge motza ball hanging out of it nose.


    I could say the same about Calvinist's pride which won't let them admit when they have made an error in hermeneutics because they have spent so much of their lives thinking they were the smart ones and all the other believers are too stupid to see what they have.

    Ken, you can't deny Romans 9:19-24 is Paul's defense of hardening and not his defense of this so called Total Depravity -- which is exactly why no one on this thread has even attempted to do so. I think you can see that Romans 9 can't be used as an answer to this objection and I think you also know that most people who begrudging accept Calvinism would have never done so had they seen that this passage was not explaining Total Depravity at all. It think its your pride that keeps you from admitting it.

    Wrong. I take no credit for my salvation and I don't want any credit. All glory goes to God!!! God and I know my heart and my motives in this, you don't so stop judging.

    The basic problem with Calvinism, once the curtain is pulled back it is based upon a foundation of misapplied passages by honest, well meaning, believers who truly think they are defending the scripture.


    BTW, I think Jacob is right. Ken, you dismiss him with your oneliner (as usual) but you missed his very valid point. Arminianism is NOT about defending man's free will, as if we are seeking to get credit for our salvation. It's about presention God as He reveals Himself through the scriptures -- as loving, just, and without reproach. A doctrine, like Calvinism, that brings those characteristics into question, especially among believers, must not only be questioned but scrutinized by anyone and everyone who calls themselves a God fearer.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please, Bill, I urge you, quit kicking against the goads, quit denying that whether you are saved or damned is totally in God's hands. Accept the fact that you can't stop God's will for you. You will be so much happier and can be satisfied in Him if you do. [​IMG]
     
  17. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Translation: I can't answer your arguments so I'll make statements that you actually agree with as if you don't agree with them so you'll get frustrated with me and change the subject.

    Nice try. Answer the arguments or stop waisting time our time on this board with meaningless posts like this.
    [​IMG]
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And since when did you either become "Boss Moderator" or when did this board get renamed the "Bill Board"?

    Furthermore, no one in this forum is forced to read my posts, so if they are a waisting(sic) of your time, don't read them.

    You know sometimes, Bill, you are not a very nice person.

    [ May 06, 2003, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: KenH ]
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not dismiss Jacob with a one liner and I resent you saying I did so. I dovetailed my comments behind his to make a very valid point.

    I have noticed, Bill, that you tend to retreat into your shell and call other people's points one liners and dismissive when they are clearly not. Sometimes you can get away with that as I admit that I do throw out some zingers. But you are off the mark this time and you need to be more careful in the future with your accusations toward me. Okay, brother?
     
  20. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. Bill,

    I thought I read your answer to this to say you actually agree with this...if this is so, then what is your argument?

    Do you agree that you can't stop God's will for you? Do you agree you can't change God's will for you? The difficulty you guys have is not that do men choose, you truly despise the Sovereignty of God, you see, we permit all who will come to do so, because they come by the sovereign drawing power of God; thus the difficulty is at your doorstep. Not ours.

    Bro. dallas
     

Share This Page

Loading...