Actually, I thought his point was spot on. It addressed an assumption often made by Arminians/Non-Calvinists that for man to be responsible he must be able.
Did God ever prevent people from believing the gospel?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Dec 24, 2009.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
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. -
-
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.
-
Skandelon, you're making much ado about a word's origin to make an issue out of something I neither said nor addressed. See my earlier comment on the word "disaster" (root words being "bad star") not being an indicator of someone's belief in astrology.
And, IMO, my comment does indeed address the topic. It isn't the answer you're looking for, but it addresses the topic. -
-
Accusing someone of being a troll doesn't help your argument. It does indeed addresses the question of this post. You're simply not happy with the answer.
-
-
You're proceeding from an assumption that a calvinist view precludes man's responsibility to accept salvation, resulting in the conclusion that calvinism must be rejected (stemming from the idea that God opens/closes a man's heart rather than man open his heart to God). However, God opening a man's heart does not preclude a man's responsibility to accept or reject the gift of salvation. The mainline Calvinist position does not compromise God's soveriegnty, nor does it preclude man's accountability. They are not mutually exclusive concepts, and it is not necessary to reject calvinism to hold man responsible for his own action in regards to accepting the gift of salvation, or opening his heart thereto. -
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. -
-
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. -
-
-
If you believe that Total Depravity and God's active process of hardening are not mutually exclusive, then I'm amiss as to why you're asking the question, since you would also therefore concur that being born blind and being blinded are not mutually exclusive.
-
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]
Page 2 of 5