Did God ever prevent people from believing the gospel?

Are you Jewish? I ask because they are known for responding to questions with a question. :smilewinkgrin:

I'll respond in kind, with two questions:

1. Does it seem to be unjust for God to temporarily blind an already rebellious person from knowing the truth so as to accomplish a greater good for all mankind?

2. Does it seem unjust for God to permanently blind a man from birth because of the sin of Adam never giving them the ability to willingly receive the gift of grace?

My answers:

1. Kind of, yes, it does seem a little unjust, however the bible explains and justifies this and thus I accept it. This is actually the question Paul is answering in Romans 9-11 and so I am willing to swallow this.

2. Definitely! This seems repulsive to me. Even Calvinists like RC Sproul and JI Packer admit the difficulty of this belief and the natural repulsion to it. They accept it because they think the bible justifies it, but in reality the bible is only justifying the first diatribe rebuttal, not the second.

Now, before you said it, I agree that God would be just to send everyone to hell, but that is not the point. That is the rebuttal Calvinists always use in this discussion, but this is not about what God would be just in doing, its about what the bible reveal about what He IS doing.

 

That may spot on if we were actually discussing that assumption, but we are not. But, since you all brought it up I pointed out that you need to either find a new word or redefine it, because it literally means "response-able." Maybe you should use the word "accountable," though that could be debated as well.

 

Fine. I concede that you as a Calvinist believe this.

To reiterate: This does not address the question of this thread: "WHY WOULD GOD DO THESE THINGS TO PREVENT MEN FROM BELIEVING, IF INDEED ALL MEN ARE BORN UNABLE TO WILLINGLY BELIEVE?"

Try to stay on topic.

 

It's on the topic of Calvinism/Arminianism, but it in no way addresses the question of this post. I've notice you have a tendency of doing this in many of your posts John. Are you who they are talking about when they use the term "Forum Troll?"

 

But if the forum shoe fits...

Explain how your comment addresses my question please.

 

Actually, in this post I'm presuming Calvinism's premise that all men are born totally blind and inquiring as to reason why God would need to further blind those in that condition. Can you answer that question please.


We can talk about your points on another thread if you would like, but as I have said, you have yet to answer THIS question.

 

As a non-Calvinistic we don't believe men are born totally hardened/blind and thus this is not really addressing the question at hand. However, I would answer this way:

Pharaoh didn't want to lose his slave labor and he did not believe in the God of the Israelites, God didn't have to make him believe this way, that was his free decision. When Moses came to Pharaoh with all these plagues and signs, if left alone, he probably would have been convinced to let the Israelite go after a few of the plagues. However, God, wanting to teach a historical lesson through the passover and make His power known throughout the world, didn't want him to let the Israelites go until that purpose had been accomplished. Thus, God blinded him from the obvious truth that the plagues revealed so as to keep his will hardened in unbelief.

Consequently, I believe this is the same reason God hardened the Jews during the days of Christ. And I believe it is the historical context of this national hardening that confuses people today when reading the scripture and has lead them to erroneous interpretations such as Calvinism.

 

Huh? What do you mean?

Calvinism teaches that men are born blind from the message of salvation and the passages I presented show that God is actively intervening in order to blind men from believing the gospel. What other purpose is there for blinding? Please expound.

I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive. As I have explained to you numerous times, I am presuming the truth of both: Total Depravity and God's active process of hardening. I'm asking you what is the purpose of latter if the former is true.

 

This is getting to be absurd. Are you being obtuse purposefully or do you really just not understand?

To claim that they are not mutually exclusive is not an argument. It is just a fancy way of saying both are true. I understand that you believe both are true. That is a given. What I asked is why is one necessary if the other is true. What is the purpose of hardening if Total Depravity is true given the texts I provided in the original post? To just say, "They are both true and necessary," or as you put it, "they are not mutually exclusive." Does not answer the question...it just restates your position.

Now if you can't understand that, fine. Just say so. But, please don't restate your position over and over just using different terminology. That is a waste of both of our time.

 

John,

As I stated before, I will state again...

To claim that they are not mutually exclusive is not an argument. It is just a fancy way of saying both are true. I understand that you believe both are true. That is a given. What I asked is why is one necessary if the other is true. What is the purpose of hardening if Total Depravity is true given the texts I provided in the original post? To just say, "They are both true and necessary," or as you put it, "they are not mutually exclusive." Does not answer the question...it just restates your position.

 

Okay, allow me to give a simplified analogous summary of our conversation John:

Skan: You believe that guy over there born blind?
John: Yes, he was born blind.
Skan: Then why is that other guy putting a blind fold over him so he can't see?
John: You're proceeding from an assumption that my view of his being born blind precludes the man's responsibility, resulting in the conclusion that my view must be rejected.
Skan: I'm not assuming anything right now, I'm asking you why that guy is putting a blind fold on someone if he is already blind? That is all.
John: His being born blind and that guy putting a blind fold on him are both true and necessary..."not mutually exclusive."
Skan: Okay I understand your position, buy why is it necessary for him to put a blind fold on someone born totally blind?
John: You have your answer but you just don't like it.
Skan: But you didn't answer my question, you just restated the facts. I still don't know why you think the guy the putting a blind fold on a blind guy. You are just restating you position over and over.
John: You're dumb...na na na na na...."I'm not listening"...[sticks fingers in ears and runs away]