Armenian view of Romans 9?

Is not your use of harding just a nice way of saying some of the Jews are reprobats?


by His Grace
mike

 

Mike, if you mean by "reprobates" the Calvinistic understanding of the non-elect, then no. Those that are spoken about being hardened in Romans 9 are provoked to jealousy and may be saved in Romans 10 and 11, so they couldn't be "non-elect" reprobates.

Calvinism teaches that men are born unable to see, hear, understand and believe the gospel. The doctrine of "hardening" teaches that men are able to see, hear, understand and believe until they have become hardened. This is why the Bible warns us not to allow our hearts to grow hardened. We are not born hardened, as Total Depravity teaches, one becomes hardened after hear, seeing, understanding and rejecting the truth. At times God sealed them in that hardened state in order to accomplish a purpose through them (ie Pharoah) which Paul compares to the hardening of the Jews in Romans 9.

 

Skandlon,

Amen!

 

Thanks, Skandelon.
Also forgot to mention:

This is an excellent correlation, that I had thought of at times, but unfortunately, not whenever I was editing the page. I'll have to add that.

 

Thanks.

It seems like everytime I get to this point of my discussion with Calvinists on Romans 9 they disappear. I'm not trying to provoke them by saying this, its just been my experience. Eric, have you experienced the same thing or have you ever really taken this further with Calvinists who are willing to deal with these clearly biblical issues?

In Him.

 

You hemmed and hawed for a week and only reluctantly posted a response to my article. What makes you think you are in a position to be griping now?

Show a little patience, Skandelon. It's a virtue, you know.

 

Forgive me. I'm waiting.

 

Ransom, I just wanted you to know I'm still working on my patience.

 

Calvinists just disappear ehhh? You just do not get out much, do you? Please...... you know, if you guys think you have such unaswerable exegetical skills, I do not know why you do not publish some books, certainly the Arminian community awaits such efforts with bated breath. Its been a long time since Clarke hasn't it? Or even better, perhaps Thomas Schreiner, Douglas Moo, John Piper, DA Carson, James White (you have heard of these guys, haven't you?) might be willing to debate you on Ro. 9?

Secondly, having one's conclusions called "debased", that your arguments are "beyond our grasp", being told to "grow up",that the issues being dealt with in Ro 9 are "above" us, that we believe in a "contadictory God", "immature", "resorting to childish banter", "in need of spiritual renewal".... well I am not surprised that someone would not care to stick around for that kind of abuse. I know I wouldn't. If that is the way you show your Christianity, then I grieve for Christianity.

At any rate, with that kind of treatment, I would not mistake absence for being aghast at your brilliance, perhaps (and I do not know Ransom, have never spoken with him/her) it is simply a matter of agreeing to disagree, rather than to continue to being subjected to disagreeable disagreement.

 

John,

You apparently haven't read through this thread. Ransom has dished out his share of abuse, refering to us as being mentally ill as just one example. Plus, I didn't say all of those things about Ransom. Two, I refered to his behavior as being childish because he wasn't getting his way he refused to answer our arguments. He demanded that I do a verse by verse commentary before he would answer any of my posts. I refered him to Clarke but that wasn't enough for him. When I refered to Romans 11 to help refute his claims about Romans 9 he dismissed it by saying I hadn't addressed one single thing in Romans 9, and you can see that was completely untrue.

But what is revealing is that you two would rather talk about people's deamenor or other such frivalous issues rather than the topic at hand. Why is that? I honestly just want to debate the issues and find myself frustrated to no end because the Calvinists on this thread, namely Ransom, won't debate the issues. Instead, he keeps coming up with excuses and reasons why my arguments can't be answered yet. He thinks if he diverts the attention away from his lack of substance that maybe no one will notice, but it is painfully obvious to any objective observer I assure you.

If you need proof that I can have a reasonable discussion with a Calvinist then you can visit the other thread where Ian and I are having a very productive and edifying discussion. I've also had very good discussions with Russell55. I assure you that is my desire. Its only when I run across hostile Calvinists that seem to have a chip on their shoulder or are not being honest with the issues that things get sticky. I promise if you and I knew each other personally you would see that I am very easy to get along with and that I am truly seeking to understand the scriptures more fully.

 

Skandelon,
I don't know you, either, but I find you to be easy to get along with, reasonable in your doctrine, and well learned in scripture....but then I am not Calvinist, Arminian, Pauline, Roman, or any other subdivision of CHRISTIAN, so it is easy for me to see the truth in what you post. I am not blinded by the teachings of other "mere mortals" who themselves were trying to understand God's word.

We may disagree in some aspects of the Christian Faith...and that's OK! But we are in agreement on the essentials of the faith, and that is as it should be.

God Bless your testimony here on this BBS!

 

Right back at ya!

 

Skandelon, I am not saying that you are hard to get along with, or that you said all of the things I mentioned. Nor did I ever say that Ransom had done no wrong. I merely stated that given that he had been said about him, it is no wonder that he is not that active in this thread. That you point out that he had wronged you, and that you use this as an excuse for your own wrong behavior, in no way exonerates either you, or anyone else's unkind remarks. Do you have children? Even if not, surely you know, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Or better:
“Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
(Rom 12:17 NASB)
“See that (34) no one repays another with evil for evil, but always (35) seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. (1Th 5:15 NASB)
Etc.

Secondly, I did read the entire thread, how else could I have gleaned all the ad hominem remarks I pointed out? I could not have magically picked them out without reading the entire thread/post.

Thirdly, you say

Now this reveals you have not read the thread. I direct you to my post of February 02, 2004 09:02 AM. I may have not been that active in posting, and nor did I take the time to address either your or Yelsew’s posts point by point, but I point out that no one responded to me either. Be that as it may, I see no use in responding to either you or Yelsew, for neither of you will likely change your minds about individual election, and I need to be a good steward of my time for several reasons, I have a wife and 4 children who come first, secondly I am disabled and am not able to sit upright for very long. The problem is that you see this silence as an admission of defeat. This is of course false. Paul at times said what he felt the Spirit leading him to say, and then moved on. See Acts 17, particularly v33.Did he then think that because he said no more in many of the aforementioned instances that the Gospel message he was preaching must be false? That his silence meant he could not say anything more? Surely not. So too with either you or Yelsew’s points of contention. I have so many resources available to me to point out where I think your exegesis fails. I mentioned several of those resources in my earlier post. Its just that I do not think it is a worthy endeavor, for reasons already mentioned

Further, people's demeanor is not a frivolous issue. Or does Jesus (or indeed the entire Bible) have nothing to say about this sort of thing? I cannot believe that you would really think this. The Bible is clear on how we are to conduct ourselves, regardless of the temptation to say “he did it first!”

 

I wasn't impling that Ransoms silence meant anything. I was merely reminding him that I was interested in hearing his response. That is the honest truth. I often leave a post unanswered for several days, or even weeks depending upon the circumstances of my life. I don't read anything into his silence. I just didn't want the thread to get buried and then him forget I was waiting. That's all.

 

Ransom exactly backwards was right on.I've never seen any one know so much ,but relize so little,despite their better judgement.A child of God will allways be a child of God.The tares will never become a child of God,yet they to are in the world.They are deceivers,unbelievers,ungodly,reprobates hardened souls kept in store.The devils flood of people.lost souls still wandering around from the last flood.In the blackness and darkness for ever.Children of the wicked one.

Faith is not a work of man but a condition of man's spirit!

The reason men have faith at all is because it is given to them. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). </font>[/QUOTE]

 

This would assume that no one who gets saved was ever any of these things. But "As such, were some of you" (1 Cor.6:11, see also Eph.2:3)

 

No the children of God was never a tare.The tares come up an choke the word and make the children of God unfruitfull.Thats why we most come out from among the heathen and be separate or we will continue in heathanish ways.which is unbelief,adultry,etc.What God has planted won't be rooted up,but the tares will be bundles and burned in a fire.It takes the good shepard to seek out these sheep and save them thats why we can't regenerate our lost selves it takes the lord to come rescue us from the heathens culture of this life.And God does rescue some poor child every day that belongs to him and the creature flees and a child comes to repentance by the love and mercy of an Almighty God.

This would assume that no one who gets saved was ever any of these things. But "As such, were some of you" (1 Cor.6:11, see also Eph.2:3) </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Still, a child of God can come from a state of delusion, where he sits in a church, appears to be saved, and perhaps even corrupts the children, chokes out the word, etc. (the definition of a "tare" among the "wheat"). He can still be saved later, unless those acts are some sort of unpardonable sins that once you do them, you can never be saved.
An example of well known tares would be some of the more crass faith teachers. Some may be "given over" to their sin, in which they will not repent, but still, we don't know, and some may repent. That doesn't change what they had been before repenting. The same with any person sitting in a church making everyone think he believes, but he really doesn't.
Anyone who dies in this state, is then "thrown into the fire" as a "tare". If they repent, then they are no longer a tare.

 

No man can repent and live repentance with a clean conscience with out the convicting power of the Holy spirit.If it's a genuine repentance given of God it will be strong enough to do the job.Man can't repent out of the blue,it has to be given.A prayer has to be given before it can go back up.

 

Nobody's saying anyone can repent without the convicting power of the Spirit. Still, the description of "tares" does fit those who become saved, before they became saved, and cannot be assumed to be a preordained state.