Calvinists, answer this one for me.

My only accusation against you is the same one you have been bringing against me. That you don't deal with the text.

You say that I don't deal with John 8, but I have and I never said it wasn't about salvation. I explained that we are all born as children of the devil.....no I'm not going to restate it, you go back and read it if you're really interested.

And I have dealt with Romans 8. None of the nexts you guys bring up even deal with the men's inablity to respond to the gospel. That is CLEAR. Acts 28 does but you won't go there. So does the rest of the verses concerning hardened, but for some weird reason you won't go there.

Hmmmm. I wonder why?

Do you really think anyone is buying your excuses about me not being willing to learn or about you just not having time or its in the archives so I don't want to go over it again? Come on. We can all see right through those excuses. Keep running from the scriptures Larry but they will still be there waiting for you when you get back around to reality.

 

Larry, you read my posts about as well as you read the bible.

My whole argument hinges upon the fact that the Jews in Jesus time CANNOT believe in him. That is not the same as the entire human race being unable to respond to the gospel today. Jesus' audience was HARDENED for a time. Like pharoah, they could not change their minds until God had accomplished His purpose through their unbelief? Are they still to blame? YES. That is the real issue Paul addresses in Romans 9. He is not addressing the Arminans as Calvinists often seem to assert. John 8 is Jesus speaking to a group of rebellious Jews who were born, like the rest of us, as children of the devil. God desired to gather them under his wings but they were unwilling. God hardened them in the unwillingness and used it to accomplish redemption on the cross and the ingrafting of the rest of the world. Romans 10 and 11 explain that.

I have. But I will deal with again if I need to. Paul's use of the words "cannot" and "are not able" are not in regard to there being able to respond to the gospel. It has to do with their inability to submit to the law, which I have no problem with. And there inablity to please God while still living in the flesh. It says nothing about their inablity to leave the flesh and walk in faith after being confronted with the powerful Holy Spirit wrought message of the cross. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation yet you seem to think it only has power when proceeded by the effectual call. That is never expounded upon in our Bible, it is only assumed by your dogma.

I would have to concede to this point if indeed Jesus wasn't addressing a group of Hardened Jews.

Why can't they believe? Because they were born that way? Not according to ACT 28 and other such passages which clearly state their abilities to believe had they not been hardened. You still need to deal with that Larry.

Let me lay it out in a simple illustation: Lets say I told you that a my Sunday School class was locked in there room last Sunday because the door got jamed. It was clearly explained to you that the reason they could not leave the class was because the door was jamed shut OTHERWISE they could have left the room, but as it was it was temporarily jamed. Then someone comes along who wasn't even there and without any proof says, "Well yes the door was jamed but that is insignificant. The fact is no one in the whole church could leave their class room."

"What? Someone protests. Everyone else could have left, they couldn't leave because the door was jamed."

"That is not significant to this discussion. Look at the police record here. It says, "They could not leave the class. See there is proof, no one could leave the class."

"You idiot. That police report is about the people in the class with the jamed door."

"No, that is not relevant here....blah blah blah.."

That is what you sound like to me. Case and point coming up in your next quote:

How is a verse explaining why certain people can't hear, see, understand or believe the gospel message Paul is preaching not relevant to our discussion. Could you explain that to me?

You haven't dealt with it. If you have and can prove it I will reward you by taking a full five days off and leave you completely alone.

Maybe that will get you to respond.

 

Are you just being difficult on purpose or do you really think this? Did you read my argument at all?

We are all born as children of the Devil. Some when confronted with the gospel are persuaded to faith in Christ, but when these men were confronted with the gospel they did not. Why? Because they were still being hardened or kept as children of the devil. That is what hardening is...it is being locked into following your natural condition. And while we are speaking of not having the support of the text at least I have John 12, Acts 28, Mark 4, Luke 8, Romans 11 and other such text to support my basis for why they remain as children of the devil. What do you have?

Oh yeah. Romans 8, "they cannot submit to the law or please God while remaining in the flesh." Nothing about hearing, seeing, understanding, or believeing the gospel. And you think I lack textual backing???

That is just it. He is speaking of people WITHOUT THE SPIRIT. He is speaking of the condition of man before confronted by the Spirit. Now you ask yourself a question. What means has the Spirit chosen to make himself known? The gospel. The powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel message is not even mentioned so for you to assume that mankind cannot respond to it based upon this verse is very weak hermeneutics, yet this one verse seems to be the foundation for your views. Relatively OBSURE don't you think?

Yes, that is where the analogy falls short, I agree. But you still fail to address Acts 28 and the other texts on hardening. Do you assume that those verses are merely talking about their intellectual capasities and therefore dismiss them as being irrelevant? By what authority or explaination to you have to define what the author means by inability? Is there some text somewhere that explains the differing degrees of inability or is this just the best that Calvinistic dogma can produce as a smokescreen? I'm not trying to be hostile, honestly. But look back at my question and your answer and tell me if you really even answer my question. You don't, you merely try to redirect the discussion.

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the way some explain election but they are met with the phrase, "Nations are made up of individuals."

BTW, I happen to agree with that statement. How does this national hardening affect the individuals Jesus is speaking to on a daily basis? That is what we are dealing with here.

 

I'm spending much less time than I have been now, but I enjoy the honest exchange of ideas and thoughts on the scripture. It keeps me sharp and dealing with the word.

I was at the Shepherd's Conference with John MacArthur, RC Sproul and Al Mohler this last week. I really enjoyed. I was surrounded by Calvinists! I like Calvinists (in general) because they are thinkers. Arminians, at this time in history, are typically ignorant of the issues and really don't care to think about it. I think that is sad.

Sometimes I still wish I could be a Calvinist, but to go back to that I would have to forget what I have learned about the scripture.