Why do Calvinists on this board think my arguments are "new"???

Since I joined this board in January many of the Calvinists on this board have accused me of arguing a new position.

Our esteemed moderator Larry even once told me that the doctrine of Hardening had no part in this debate historically and shouldn't even be considered. He went on to assert that my attempts to introduce the biblical teachings of hardening were mere ploys that were just my way of diverting attention from the "real issues" as if I was the only one in the history of this debate who appealed to these arguments.

A few others on this board continually resort to labelling my arguments as being "new" or without any historical backing. Or they call them deceptive debate tricks while ignoring the arguments altogether.

This response proves the fact that not only are most Arminians ignorant of the classic historical positions of free-will advocates, but so are Calvinists. This ignorance is what I believe has lead to the resurgance of Calvinism over the last decade. Calvinism knows their system well and are very convincing in their presentations, but Arminians at this time in our history are mostly ignorant as to why they are Arminians and do not know how to defend against the more sure footed Calvinists.

The trouble is that most Calvinists remain ignorant about their opponents true historical position, forgetting that during the time of Jacob Arminius the resurgance was going the other direction as Arminians grew in number. BTW, they did so during a time that both sides were very well versed on their viewpoints and people as a whole were much more concerned with sound doctrine, unlike now when few really care to study.

I know many Calvinists. And I'm quite certain that had they been privey to a full understanding of both sides of this classical arguments most of them would have never adopted Calvinism in the first place. IMO, most Calvinists became so out of ignorance of the views in which they protest.

CASE AND POINT:

Are my arguments concerning "Hardening" new as many on this board have asserted?

Let's see:

Go to this site and type in "hardening" in the search menu to read Arminius' work on the subject: http://www.godrules.net/theology.html

Here is just a small portion: (Romans 9)

We shall, however, set forth the answer with greater conciseness, if we adapt it to the several parts of the syllogism in the objection. The syllogism was as follows -- "He, who hardens by His own irresistible will, can not justly 'find fault' with those, who are hardened; -- But God hardens by His own irresistible will; -- Therefore, He can not justly find fault with those hardened." The apostle replies to the Major by denial; both because it is absolutely false, since they, whom God hardens, have merited that hardening, and God is free to inflict upon them, according to their merits, in whatever way it may seem good to Him; and because a false cause of anger is alleged, namely, hardening, while they, even before they are hardened, were vessels of wrath, and, therefore, the cause of the hardening. The Major, then, should be corrected thus: "He, who, by His own irresistible will, hardens those who, because they are vessels of wrath, have deserved hardening, can moreover 'find fault' with those justly hardened." To the Minor, the apostle replies, by proposing another mode of hardening, by which is removed that mode, which is assumed in the Minor; for He "endured, with much long suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Why should any imputation be made against God, if they have been hardened on account of their own wickedness. The Minor, then, should also be corrected; "But God, using patience and long suffering towards the vessels of wrath, hardens them." The Major also must then be further amended, by introducing this mode of hardening, which will greatly favour its truth and equity. From this it follows that the conclusion is false; its contrary follows of necessity from the correction made in its antecedents, and it is most fully true, not only on account of the antecedent truth, but also on account of the just design of the divine hardening, which is the illustration and exhibition of the wrath and power of God. What pertains to that phrase, "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction," can be easily understood from the preceding remarks. As to what is said in addition in reference to "the vessels of mercy," it has been explained for what purpose the apostle did this.

You must read the entire artical to grasp his full meaning but you can clearly see that the issue of hardening played a significant role in the classical debate, yet here on this board, for the most part, it is ignored, dismissed or labled as unworthy of response.

Why? Because it comes from the likes of someone like me "who is paddling out away from the mainstream." "It's that weird guy Brother Bill that makes up new teachings. Let's just make fun of him and laugh at him for making up new arguments."

Funny thing is I'm one of the few people on this board arguing classical Arminianism and Calvinists don't even know it. That is sad.

 

That's straight from Erasmus, to which Luther responds:

Who? Arminius and Mr. Bill, to name two. </font>[/QUOTE]Nick, did you even read all of Arminius' artical. This quote from Luther doesn't even address the argument that Arminius makes.

Arminius doesn't try to say that God doesn't hardened them. He affirms that God hardens them and then shows why God is just in doing so.

He is just in doing so because they themselves had already rebelled against God while he held out his hands to them in patient endurance.

What is it about this quote from Luther that disagrees with this arguement. Luther wrote: " "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh," you are to change the persons and understand it thus: - Pharaoh hardens himself by My long-suffering. God hardeneth our hearts."

Maybe Erasmus was arguing this, but Arminius was not. He does not attempt to "change the persons" and say that Pharaoh "hardens himself." He is only saying that God hardens them after they have rebelled continually to his "longing to gather them under his wings." In other words, he shows the reason that God is just in hardening them, which is the question that Paul is attempting to answer in this passage.

He is certainly not attempting to answer the question, "Why does God find fault with the non-elect who are born totally depraved by an act of God's imputation and never shown mercy?" As many Calvinists assume.

 

Scott, you are the only one I am aware of who has not at one point or another accused me of "making this stuff up." I agree that it is not really important how old these arguments are but that is not the point of this post.

I'm trying to show the ignorance of Calvinists in regard to the view they oppose. This is a great weakness on the part of Calvinists because it shows that they are not even knowledgable enough of the Arminian system to know what parts of it they should disagree with. It's easy to say a system is flawed if your ignorant of the arguments that support it. Arminians judge Calvinism based upon ignorance all the time and it absolutely drives Calvinists up the wall. We see it on this board all the time when Arminians misrepresent a Calvinistic view. But it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black becasue Calvinists just think they know what Arminians believe just because they used to be an ignorant Arminian and have debated a few ignorant Arminians.

When they start hearing Arminius' indepth claims that only a well read and educated Arminian would be fimilar with they think it's new. Personally, I find that amusing.

I agree. But you can't know if an interpretation is sound unless you have objectively studied it's claims and it's argumentation. Something that a majority of Calvinist have not done as proven by their response to my posts.

This is my point. I haven't developed it. It is scripture and it has been used to defeat Calvinism throughout history. I know its easier to dismiss these arguments if they were developed by me, because, heck, who is Brother Bill? But, my point is that had Calvinists on this post been fimilar with the classic debate they would have never thought my arguements were "new."

I don't blame you. Read your history and you will see that not many were willing to get on the "see-saw" with Arminius either.

You still see the doctrine of hardening as a small insignificant "head of a pin" don't you Scott?

Funny, most Arminians today see predestination as the "head of a pin" in which you balance your elephant.

Hardening is spoken of enumerable amounts of times more than predestination or election, yet its funny how you still see it as the "head of the pin." I guess it all in the perspective of where your blind spot is.

 

How do you know. From the very little time I've spent debating you through the very slow method of written word I can clearly see that you don't have even a glimpse of understanding the depth of Arminians argumentation on just this one subject of hardening, much less the other issues.

This is evident and true of many who have been convinced by Calvinistic reasoning. Those who are unfimilar with history are destined to repeat its mistakes. IMHO, you ignorance of the classical debates throughout the history of Christianity have lead you to make one of those crucial mistakes. Please consider an indept study of the classics, you might be surprised to hear from an Arminian who is actually educated in his position.

Only two?

  
Mr 6:52 -
for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.

Mr 8:17 - Show Context
And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened?

Joh 12:40 -
He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them.

Ac 19:9 -
But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.

Ro 11:7 -
What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:

2Co 3:14 -
but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed [to them] that it is done away in Christ.

Heb 3:8 -
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the desert,

Heb 3:15 -
As it is said: Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.

Heb 4:7 -
again, He specifies a certain day-- today --speaking through David after such a long time, as previously stated: Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.

There are several more that don't use the word "hardened" or "harden" but that teach the concept such as Acts 28, Mark 4 and many others.

Statements like this just prove the point of this post.

Scott, we have a tendency to think that a doctrine we are unfamiliar with is not significantly taught in the scritpures. People who don't know anything about predestination make the kind of argument your making here all the time. Why? It's a blind spot.

I often have found myself thinking of the doctrine of end times as being insignificant because of my lack of study on the topic yet it is spoken of numerous times throughout scripture. I am convicted because I should know that any doctrine of scripture is worthy of my full attention even if it were only mentioned twice. (which hardening is clearly not)

Funny, the same could be said about election, maybe there is a connection.

maybe. But I'm not the one who is unfimilar with my oppositions arguments. Ignorance is the breading ground for error. Even by your own admission you have only done a pleminary study of this doctrine, so while it is possible I have a blind spot, it is much more likely that you do.

These requests to prove that which I have not ever claimed to believe only go to prove that you still have no idea what you debating against.

God's active hardening in scripture in seen only in reference to the Jews and Pharoah.

Man's hardening of themselves is seen in regard to believers and non-believers.

I've never said that election nor hardening (as in self hardening) only applies to the Jews.

 

Actually scripture asserts that:

'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.' Acts 28:27

37 Even though He had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in Him. 38 But this was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet, who said: Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them. 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke about Him. John 12

I don't think I would word it that way. People don't consciously say, "I am going to harden myself now." People are self hardened by ignoring God's revelation of Himself to them and living in sin, both of those are choices that mankind are geniunely held responsible for by God, thus I believe they are geniunely capable of a choice in that regard.

It doesn't seem rational nor is it biblical that God would show anger or wrath toward people for something that they have absolutely no control over. If you are correct, then when Christ rebukes man for their lack of faith it is just a farse, he should be rebuking God (or himself) for not giving them enough faith. This kind of thinking is absurd.

Romans 9 is often appealed to as a defense for why God would hold people responsible for something they cannot resist, but it is clear that this passage is speaking about God's divine hardening of Israel, whom God had been holding his hands out to for generations (Rom. 10), in patience and longsuffering (Rom. 9), longing to gather them together under his wings (Matt. 23:37). But they were unwilling (Matt. 23:37) but God's sovereign plan of redemption is never twarted, even by unwilling hearts. He sovereignly elects his chosen apostles from admidts the harden Jews to accomplish the divine purpose of revealing His mystery of reconcilation of the world through Christ, to whosoever believes, first to the Jew then to the Gentiles.

In order to accomplish this plan of redemption he insured the cruxificition by divinely hardening Israel in their rebellion. The miracles, as awe inspiring as they were, could not convince these hardened hearts just as the mighty plagues on Pharoah's land could not convince him to let God's people go. Why? God's hardened them in their rebellion.

Do you think the average unhardened Joe who saw the miracles of Jesus or the plagues on Egypt wouldn't be completely convinced? Probably so, which is exaclty why they were divinely hardened (at least temporarily).

I hope this clarifies my position, and the position that Arminius expounds upon in the artical I posted.

 

I'm sorry my post offended you. I was only defending against your attack and it was not my intention to cause you to be offended.

The word "ignorance" carries a much more negative connotation than sometimes intended. I just meant that you are unfimilar with certain arguments, this is true even by your own admission, and I believe that has lead to your misrepresentations of my claims and your mistakes concerning my views of what the scripture says. I don't look down on you for this, but I will continue to correct you. I only appeal to you, please do not to judge that which you clearly don't understand nor have fully studied. Seek to understand it first, then you can attack it without unintentionally creating staw men.

I want to debate my views with others, but they must understand them first. Your comments continually cause me to believe that you don't understand. This is NOT because you don't agree with me, but because you fail address my arguments. Instead, you attack what you honestly believe I am saying and when I correct you, you get offended. I'm sorry, I don't know what else I can do except ask you to study the classics, maybe they can expouse these views in a way that you can better understand them.

 

As are most. This does not qualify you as being knowledgable of Arimians arguments I assure you.

As good as I am at expousing these views the limited nature of this board and the short amount of time that you and I have spent on these issues is in no way sufficient to gaining the understanding needed. This is true of both Calvinism and Arminianism. If a someone who had never even heard of Calvinistic claims came on this board, they couldn't be expected to understand all of its arguments just from what he read here. There must be some independant study of the scholars who originally systematized many of these throughts. That is true of both sides.

We have the same bible and we read the same texts. We just interpret them differently. Understanding those interpretations is crucial to clear and reasonable debate.

 

Your Bible is definitely different than mine. Your Bible never teaches that we (those who are saved) are all saved by grace. Your Bible says that our names are written into the book of life according to our deeds. Your Bible leaves out the part where God said Adam would die on the day he ate the fruit. Your Bible includes a lot of verses that don't appear in my Bible - such as the ones that say apostles are saved differently than the rest of us. I don't have the verses that say the only way a person could be unable to receive the Gospel is if God hardens them after they harden themselves.

So I think we're definitely talking about different texts, not just different interpretations. </font>[/QUOTE]Nick, it shouldn't surprise me that you interpret my words the way that you do, you hermeneutics of my posts are as bad as your hermeneutics of the Bible, but if you want to continue to misrepresent me and be sarcastic about every little thing that's fine, whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I still love you.

 

I'm sorry Pastor I thought this was a Calvinism/Aminianism Debate board, apparently I was mistaken. Can you point me to the board where I can introduce arguements made by Jacobus Arminianus in response to the Calvinistic understanding of Total Depravity, specifically in relation to Romans 9-11?

BTW, I had started a new thread to introduce the understanding of Hardening when you made those comments about hardening not being in relation to the issues of this board. So, let me give you a little more accurate analogy:

A bunch of guys are standing around discussing the Bush verses Clinton debates from the last election. A Bush supporter walks up and begins to expound on some lesser known points that Bush had made in his debates. The Clinton supporters tell him he just making new stuff up and ask him where he got his arguements. The Bush supporter is amused that the Clinton supporters have been debating these issues for years and didn't even recognize Bush's own arguments when they heard them, so he didn't tell them that they were teachings from Bush, he just let them keep thinking that he was just making the stuff up. The Bush supporter even has some fun quoting Clinton every once in a while and pretending like it was his original thought just to see if they would disagree with him, to his amusement they did, thus showing their overall ignorance of the debate that they claim they were discussing.

Pastor, if I recall correctly, you even said something to the effect of your theologies not even discussing these issues together and then accused me of making this up without any historical support. Remember?

I refused to point out my sources because it was humorous to me to see how educated men couldn't even recognize the arguments of their #1 opponent, whom they are so sure is wrong. How can you know someone is wrong if you aren't even fimiliar with their arguements? The funny thing is many on this board aren't even fimilar with the arguments made by the name sake of your system.

To me that is a proof that many of you have no authority by which to deam Arminianism false. How do you make a claim that something is wrong if you don't even know the supports for that claim? It is impossible.

Calvinists on this board are always getting on to lesser informed Arminians for attacking what they think is an Calvinistic belief. You all tell them not to attack what they don't even understand, yet that is exactly what you all have done with my arguments, which in reality are Arminius' arguments.

Larry, how can you be sure that Arminius' arguments against Calvinism didn't have some merit if you don't even know what the basis for his claims were? And the fact that you think the issue of hardening has no place on a Calvinism/Arminianism debate board is proof that you don't know the basis for many of Armininus' claims.

Please take the time to read through the site I refered to earlier in this post and get to know the teachings of the guy who you are so sure is a false teacher. Thanks.