Why I'm no longer a Calvinist:

I'll refer you back to the unanswered posts regarding Romans 1 in the other thread as my rebuttal...

The problem with you exegisis is that you stopped too soon. The "rest" who are hardened continued to be discussed in the following verses revealing that they are NOT necessarly destined to hell as your interpretation presumes. They might be provoked to envy and saved. They could "leave their unbelief" and be "grafted back into the vine." Those those "hardened" here, just as those "given over" in Romans 1 are not necessarily the non-elect who are destined to hell. All men (both Jew and Gentile) are bound over to disobedience so that God might show mercy to them ALL. An individual being "hardened" doesn't equal destined to hell, and an individual being "show mercy" doesn't equal being destined to heaven.

 

Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

Are you sure?

And orthodoxy is defined how and by whom?

And most believers in that freedom have rejected your form of it, so what's your point?

Why? Could I have chosen otherwise than what He decreed that I should believe?

As have you, but if I'm wrong and your right all is only done as God has determined it to be. If you are wrong, however, you really will be responsible (response-able) for your false teaching.

 

Again, I refer you back to the unanswered post where I quote from MacArthur and other Calvinistic commentators who also make the distinction between all of mankind and those who believe (whether made to believe through effectual means or not, the distinction IS made).

I'm not in ANY WAY negating the verses you already presented. I agree that there are a group of Jews who have been reserved from the hardening process (men like Paul) who if not for the direct intervention of Jesus on the road would have clearly remained in his rebellious/hardened condition. God specifically hand picked Paul...not because he deserved it or will it...in fact its clear his will was to kill Christians. We agree on this point ( I think). The REST of the Jews (Pharisees who along with Saul stoned Stephen), remained hardened and rebellious. Why?

1. In their rebellion they kill Christ bringing redemption.
2. In their rebellion they leave room for the Gentiles to come into the church
3. In their rebellion and allowing the Gentiles to come it give them opportunity to experience God and have their lives changed which in turn might provoke the hardened Jews with envy as they see the change in the Gentiles lives.

So, in Romans 9 when Paul says God can hardened who He wants and show mercy to who He wants, you don't believe he is talking about the non-elect and elect? Please explain?

Let me clarify. There is a difference between "self-hardening" and "judicial hardening." Self hardening is when the individual simply chooses to ignore the obvious truth and rebel. Judicial hardening is a direct act of God to blind men from the truth so that the truth can't change their will.

As the illustration about the cop explains. The speeder is self hardened because he decided to speed on his own. No one made him want to speed. He freely chose that. The cop hides his presence (judicial hardening) so that the speeder will keep doing what his heart has already determined to do. The cop is not culpable for the speeders crime, but he is only hiding the truth of his presence so as to ensure that the speeder will keep doing what he has already determined in his heart to do. Make sense?

So, I am NOT denying that God has actively blinded the majority of Israel in their rebellion. I believe that whole heartedly. I just don't believe that is an act of certain condemnation to hell, but its actually an act of mercy for the reasons explained above.

The third group is the Gentiles who he addresses in the following verses, as I pointed out. So, there is Israel (the lump of clay) most of which has been hardened and used for common use, but some from Israel have been chosen for noble purposes (to take the message to the world...even the Gentiles). One lump (Israel) molded by God for two purposes. But even those of Israel who are hardened could leave their unbelief and be saved. That is Paul's point.

 

I'll let the readers decide if it is more disingenuous to quote Calvin without giving him credit until the end of the thread, or to resort to personal attack, not deal objectively with the content of another's posts, and remain so uninformed about the historical aspects of the scholarship surrounding this discussion that one doesn't even recognize the distinctions between what they should and should not be affirming.