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.