God, That's not fair!

Skandelon said,
No, I don't "have to" make the fulness of the Gentiles occure in the apostolic generation, Adam Clark doesn't.

If you don't, then you have all those hardened perishing in their sins, just as I've said: hardening for the individuals is permanent, and therefore reprobation is true.

And no I've never said that I believed the scripture taught that men could be saved without hearing the gospel. I said that the scripture doesn't address that question specifically. The scripture does speak of the blood of men being on the one who was to be their messenger. It speaks of the fact that without law their is no sin. It speaks about man's conscience and the revelation of creation leaving them without excuse unless they indeed to acknowledge God. From these things we can speculate what God might do, but it is speculation. Just as you must speculate as to why God would choose to save some and not others. But these issues don't contradict scripture as it seems you have done with John 12:39-41 and the others like it.

The heathen sin even though they are not under the law of Moses and they are therefore not sinning against it. They are sinning against God's moral law. If they do not hear the gospel and repent, they perish in their sins. The witness of creation and conscience make them without excuse, but that does not mean it was enough to save them. Without the gospel they are without God and without hope. Only those who have come to Christ are with God and with hope. Ephesians 2: 11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- 12that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

There is no room for speculation. The Scripture is clear. But of course that destroys the Arminian concept of God's plan of salvation, for it is evident that He leaves vast swathes of mankind without the gospel, to perish in their sins. Either He is incompetent, uncaring, or He has sovereignly choosen to save some sinners and to let others justly perish for their sin. Calvinism affirms the latter. That's why Arminianism leads folk to believe in salvation without the gospel; a desperate attempt to maintain free-willism and God's justice.

Let me put it another way: if salvation comes only via the gospel, then reprobation is established. It means that God has determined to withold the gospel and therefore salvation from a portion of mankind. Even without discussing God's choice in eternity past, we have it displayed before us right now: election and reprobation. If you deny them, you MUST affirm that the heathen can be saved without the gospel.

All of Israel who were not saved were hardened as indicated by the words "the rest were hardened" in Romans 11. Plus, the fact that Jesus spoke to large crowds of people accusing them of being unable to believe because of their hardened hearts and it was these same crowds that had him crucified. And according to Actsmany, literally hundreds, of those accused by Peter as being among those who killed Christ came to faith in him. Do you really think that Jesus would have made a blanket statement about them all being hardened if some of those he was addressing were not hardened at all? Wouldn't he have said, "Some of you don't believe because you have been hardened."

But Israel under discussion is Israel from then to the end of time, not just those then alive. So the two groups include folk from every generation; the elect who obtain and the rest who are hardened.

I don't believe He did make such a blanket statement. Many even as He spoke believed in Him, not counting his disciples. And hardened is not synonymous with lost. Many then lost would later be saved. Jesus knew of whom He spoke, we do not. Just as for the elect and reprobate; we preach to all, but He knows who's who.


The gospel is not the same thing as the effectual calling and you can't equate the two even in your system. The effectual calling, in you system, must precede the call of the gospel for it to have any effect. What I mean by Holy Spirit wrought, it that bringing the gospel to the world was a divine act. The Spirit is in the Word. The Word has power. I mean the spoken word, not some secret hidden irresistable inward calling that scripture never expounds upon. But it is also clear in scripture that people can resist the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7)

You seem to know more about what I believe than I do! but let me assure you, the effectual calling is the gospel call, made effective by the Spirit opening/changing the heart so that it will accept/embrace the gospel.

Yes, the Word has power. Power to do all that its Author has determined. It irresistably converts the sheep who is called. It rebukes the conscience of the reprobate and causes them to resist and reject God's demands.

Then its not a real opportunity. An opportunity implies ability by its defination. You have stated they don't have that ability. I know, I know, they have the ability but not the desire, right? Sorry, that is semantics because the fact is you believe they are unable to be willing which affords the same argument.... It was never meant to. The Law's purpose was to reveal their sin, the law offered no opportunity. The gospel does. The law revealed to them their inability to be perfect and the gospel was the solution to that problem. Your system applies man's inability to keep the law to an inability to respond in faith to God's solution to that predicament. That is absurd.

It is you who insist on defining opportunity as implying ability - but Scripture denies that. It tells us that man had an offer of salvation from God, based on obedience to the Law. 'Do this and live'. We agree that man could not do so, because of his evil nature. So you say it wasn't a genuine offer. I say God is the best judge of what is a valid offer. Luke 10: 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" 27So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and "your neighbor as yourself."' 28And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

The purpose of the Law was not to save, we agree. It was to demonstrate our need of a Saviour. But the opportunity was there for any who could fulfill it. None could or did, until Christ came to fulfil all things. He took this opportunity and earned eternal life for us.

You said opportunity must imply ability: the Law refutes that. The Jews had the opportunity and failed, because they had no ability. Christ had the opportunity and succeeded, because He had the ability.

Yes, and according to the parable of the soils a dead man can believe apparently. How does he manage to do that if he is "totally unable?" [quote:I don't know what you mean - please explain where this is in the parable.] You know the seeds on the soil. Matt. 13

Yes, the dead man can believe - when he is made able. The effectual call is just exactly that - effectual. The seed falls on the soil prepared by the Spirit and it therefore bears fruit. When was the soil finally ready, finally 'good soil'? It began before our birth, with every circumstance of our life preparing us for the moment. But the final preparation was the opening of heart given by the Spirit as His word entered our ears. His was the quickening voice that bade us rise. Not just a voice, but a quickening voice.


40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."
Where does this say that hardening was to make certain the nations destruction? And that no repentance would ever be granted to them?

The full prophecy says it all: Isaiah 6: 11Then I said, "Lord, how long?" And He answered: "Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant, The houses are without a man, The land is utterly desolate, 12The LORD has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. 13But yet a tenth will be in it, And will return and be for consuming, As a terebinth tree or as an oak, Whose stump remains when it is cut down. So the holy seed shall be its stump."

Yes, "cannot receive" does imply inability, but the question is; inability to do what? The inability to please God WHILE IN THE FLESH. So if I were to say to you, "As long as you remain a Calvinist you cannot please me." Would that imply that you cannot leave Calvinism? NO. It would simply imply what it says which is that as long as you remain a Calvinis you won't be able to please me. So too this statement only says that as long as one walks in the flesh they cannot please God. Nothing is said about the inability to leave that flesh in walk in faith. NOTHING.

The very act of repenting and believing, the 'leaving of the flesh' is an act that pleases God. You accept that man cannot do any good work while in the flesh, but then say that an unregenerate man can believe??? 'This is the work of God', Christ said, 'That you believe in Me'. This is the supreme work God requires of man, yet you say he can do it of himself. No, my friend, if we cannot please God in the smallest works, certainly we cannot do it in the greatest. We must be changed first.

I believe men can know God through faith in Christ.

Exactly, there is 'know' and 'know' - For saving knowledge, man needs more than for condemning knowledge.

I hope to catch up with your other post soon.

In Him

Ian

 

Skandelon said,
If I don't say that the hardening ended during the apostlic age then yes there would be those who were hardened perishing in their sins.

And God's sovereign choice of who would be spared and who would perish, election and reprobation, is established.

But since Paul does call it "temporary" it would still come to an end one day for the nation, right?

Right. For the nation.

So, its not perminant as is the Total Depravity of the non-elect; therefore they cannot be equated as you have done.

Correct, hardening is not identical to Total Depravity. The former relates to the Jewish nation and the latter to all mankind. Wrong, for the hardening is as permanent as T.D.for the individuals concerned. Hardening is temporary only in its national aspect. One day no Jew will be born hardened; that is the generation that will see the return of our Messiah. But until then all Jews, except the elect, will be born and die hardened against the gospel. In that regard, hardening and T.D. are alike: the non-elect are born and die Totally Depraved.

In addition, Paul is quite clear in Romans 11:14 that he expects to lead some of "the rest" who were hardened to salvation.

Romans 11:14if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. No mention that these were the hardened. Lost is not the same as hardened.

And notice that this is done to fulfill prophecy that God would provoke the nation to envy by hardening them in unblief and ingrafting the Gentiles. Please tell me why God would provoke a non-hardened lost elect Jew with envy in order to bring him to salvation. What purpose would that serve?

Who is being provoked to envy? The lost elect Jew or the lost hardened Jew? Seems to me the reference is to the lost elect. Now, you ask what purpose in provoking such to envy. Their salvation - God does not save man apart from the means of the message preached and the particular providences of his/her life that bear witness to the truth of the gospel. Calvinists do not believe that God saves without repentance and faith.

In your belief what is the difference between being hardened and being just Totally Depraved?

Hardening is a a giving over to blindness and hostility to the gospel, beyond that common to man. It signifies reprobation for those so blinded. Total Depravity does not.

N.B. As I've indicated before, some Reformed commentators such as Hendriksen hold that the hardening of the Jews is not permanent for the individual. As far as I can gather, they see all Jews so hardened, with the elect being called out from among them. I'm not sure I've stated their case accurately, however. That still means that God determines that most of Israel in every generation (except the last) are reprobate. Only some are granted repentance.

In Him

Ian

 

Eric,

I'll leave Bro./Sister BB to answer for themselves, as they have ably done so far, and deal only with the part of your post that replied to mine.

The only individuals hardened would be those whom God has decided to give over to their sins. These could have repented, and had "much expected", from having "much given" to them. There were apparently many in Israel like this, so the whole establishment of Israel would be blind leading the blind. This is what would occur to the end of the age. But this does not mean every individual from some new "hardened" [unconditionally, that is] class within Israel (and the rest of man) would be shut out from salvation.

Hmmm, Not sure what you mean, but I'll have a shot at it. 'The only individuals hardened would be those whom God has decided to give over to their sins.' Do you agree that that is the majority of Jews in every generation (bar the last)? If you do, then there is no way they are free to repent, for in that case at any given time a majority of the Jews could repent and so falsify Scripture. The best you could argue is that God would allow a minority of those hardened to repent. That still establishes the doctrine of reprobation in regard to the rest.


Actually, it's usually the PB's who have been saying that God saves without the gospel. And if unconditional election based on no action at all on the part of man is true, that position seems to make more sense.

Yes, the PBs are in serious error, like Arminians. But how can you say it would make more sense? Election based solely on God's good pleasure is accompanied by the calling and justification using the means He has determined in His good pleasure. If He is free to save WHOM He will, how can we say He is not free to save HOW He will? He reveals to us in the Scripture that He saves by means of the gospel.

Still, this ignores as I said, that some of those who do sense the condemning knowledge can all out to "God, whoever you are" to save them, and then God would send the Gospel to them.

A good point, one that helps clarify our debate. It is perfectly true that those who come under conviction without hearing the gospel and who then call out to the unknown God, will have Him respond by sending them to the gospel or the gospel to them. The issue is, who can do so? Calvinists say, the elect. You say, all mankind. Let me ask you to explain why history knows of only a very small number of heathen who did so. If the heathen have as much chance of being saved as those in gospel-preaching lands, why do we not hear of millions who can testify that they called out to God in their heathen darkness and He got the gospel to them? Why have multitudes of the heathen perished without ever hearing the gospel?

Are they worse sinners than the British or Americans? Are they naturally more hostile to the gospel? Is it not the case that they are just like us, and God chose to save individuals from where and when He pleased.

What you're suggesting is that being born into a land where there is no Gospel is just yet another means by which God scripts those vast hordes of people into inescapable eternal damnation (along with just "hardening" those who do live with the Gospel).

Yes, but you left out the key factor that these folk are God-hating sinners who deserve nothing but wrath.

This is not "good news"; unless good news is only "I got mine, and yes, I'll go and spread this good news to everyone so that the others who it is also for will come, (thus fulfilling my part of the script), but the most important thing is that we got ours".

It IS good news to all who will repent and believe. The cross is foolishness to the rest; a smell of death to them; repugnant to the flesh. However, the most important part is not 'we got ours' but that Christ got His - the Church, whom He loved and died for.

Anybody whose conscience is "rebuked" in a way where repentance is withheld, and they are caused to "resist and reject" all the more are people who are given over (hardened) for rejecting many prior opportunities to repent; not some nondescript class of "all who will die in their sins" being unconditionally reprobated.

And the heathen who have not had 'many prior opportunities to repent'? Unconditionally reprobated? - surely their wickedness was the condition?



But this was already answered. The Law was NOT an "opportunity" then, except in the sense of a hypothetical onlooker who didn't know they were "unable". But as they were unable to fulfill the Law, but God gave them the sacrificial system, and by responding in faith, they could "live" as God had offered them; so today, Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the LAw. Once again, to equate the two systems (Law and faith) under the banner of "inability" is to turn the Gospel into another "Law of sin and death".

You are defining opportunity differently from me, then. Scripture sets out the Old Covenant as a clear offer of salvation, even though no one could obtain it. The Jews were under the curse for breaking it. Could they object that all they were responsible for was rejecting the 'alternative', faith in the Promised One? No, they were guilty of both. They had an opportunity to 'do this and live' but they failed, being unable to fulfil its demands due to their wicked nature. That is quite distinct from the gospel opportunity. The difference between them is that God gave no one the ability to fulfil the Law; but He does give some the ability to obey the gospel. You say He must give all that ability, for opportunity must imply ability. Your argument is circular. I've just shown that the Law was in God's defination of opportunity.

Also, the gospel does save ALL whom it was intended to save, whereas the Law saved NNE. And the gospel is regarded as another message of death by the reprobate: 2 Cor. 2: 14Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. 15For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life.

That does not prove unconditional election. Christ simply describes different types of soil (conditions of the heart) in that parable, and the point is, the one open to the Gospel is the fertile soil, and yes it is prepared by the Spirit. But this does not mean that all the others are that way because they were unconditionally "passed over" by God altogether, (in order to condemn them). If so, then there would only be two types of soil.

Why then was one soil good and the rest bad? As to why there should be various types of bad, surely experience tells you that all sinners are not the totally ignorant type; or the temporary professing types, etc.? Ignorant, fearful, worldly are three clear types.


That is not what the scriptures are referring to when they say we "Cannot please God". It is talking about individual works of righteousness. Believing is not such a "work", and it does not "please God" as if it were some extra thing we did, being already OK ourselves; or even some mandatory thing that we performed well. Man is fallen in a state of natural unbelief; and if he is to have life, he must believe. That is contrasted with "doing good works" in the Bible, and yes, as God is the one who drew us, it, as a "work" is ascribed to God".

I understand why you need to say believing is not included in the things pleasing to God, but any plain reading of Scripture refutes that. You are introducing an exception purely in order to prevent your concept of natural ability falling to the ground. You make belief a neutral act, rather than a virtuous act that brings salvation. Belief IS an act of obedience.

In Him

Ian

 

Skandelon said,
Yes, in the national sense you are correct. Just as you interpret the Jews hardening nationally so too you should be consistant and interpret their election nationally. It doesn't make any since to say God elects individual unto salvation and then hardens nations. At least be consistant.

Let me try to be clearer: Paul says the nation of the Jews, Israel, are hardened. He further qualifies that by saying not all Israel, but the majority, are meant by this. The elect are excepted. The nation (majority) can then be said to be hardened. But how do you harden a nation? The answer is that it is the individual who is hardened. So we have the state of the nation referred to as hardened; also the state of the individual likewise. The nation's state is one day to be changed: they will no longer be hardened. So the nation has a temporary hardening. But the individuals who make up that nation are either elect or hardened. Their state is not temporary.

So God elects individuals and hardens individuals.

Do you deny individual election? Do you deny God knows, predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies individuals?

This is clearly where you make your mistake. No one is born hardened!!! Read the text, it clearly says they "become hardened." So to say that all Jews are born hardened individually (except the lost elect ones) is completely unfounded biblically. Are some people born more depraved than others? And this still doesn't answer the part of the scripture which says, "otherwise they might see...hear... understand and be healed". In other words, absent their being hardened they MIGHT believe and be saved. Where does TD fit into that?

At a certain juncture of history Israel was hardened. After that, they did not have to be hardened again in every generation. The individuals we born that way. Not 'more depraved', but hardened as well as depraved.

Regarding the lest/might believe argument, I covered that in the earlier posts. Essentially my case was that Paul's statement carried the understood/implied condition of the use of means. Here's some of my posts 'God has cut them of from the means He uses to convert man; the hearing and understanding of the Word. The 'lest' is a way of saying that had He treated them like He does the Gentiles, then they would have had the same response as the Gentiles do. But He has shut the majority of the Jews up to disobedience, until His appointed time. He is perfectly just in doing so, just as He had shut up the Gentiles previously. All are guilty and deserve only wrath. But He has mercy on some, whom He will.'

'The Spirit was revealing the condition and fate of these Jews and in doing so expressed only the particulars that were relevant to His purposes. He reveals their hardening, and what they are hardened against, but leaves out other aspects of the whole truth about the matter. It is this telling of only the relevant parts of a story that I need the grammatical term for. We would not consider it grammatically incorrect to make such a statement. It is a way of communicating a truth. It is not exhaustive, but it adequately sets forth the central truth to be revealed.
The truth here set forth is that these Jews were to be hardened, blinded, deafened to God’s word to the end that they would perish in their sins. The truth not discussed is that of their already hard, blind, deaf condition due to Total Depravity.

'So then the meaning of the prophecy was not that folk who were perfectly able to repent are barred from it by God; but rather that hard-hearted sinners, already enslaved by their sins, unable to change their behaviour, with minds at enmity with God, were to be wholly given over to that condition, with repentance being ruled out for them. They were to perish in their sins. Other sinners, some from among them and some from among the Gentiles, were to be granted repentance – but not them.'

'The Gentiles only have T.D. to be removed by God. He removes that from those whom He has chosen among them. He could have treated the Jewish nation likewise. But for their wickedness in rebelling against so much light, He determines that the majority of them shall not have this mercy that their privileged position would suggest. It was expected that ALL of the nation would be saved, for they were the people of the Promise. It was expected that ALL would have had their naturally hard hearts changed, in accordance with Ezek.36. But God removed even the degree of mercy He shows to the Gentiles.'

So elect people are born in a different condition than non-elect people? I thought we were all born dead and objects of wrath? Are non-elect people more dead than elect ones? If someone is not born hardened but they are born Totally Depraved can they believe and be saved?

No, only some - the hardened Jews.
Yes, we are all born dead and objects of wrath.
No, not more dead. Some are more hardened.
Yes, if you mean 'may'. Yes also in the sense that some of these will certainly be saved.

Can you list any scholar who teaches your view of hardening because I can't find one.

What in particular about my view do you not find in Reformed commentators? Its permanent nature regarding the individual? Its temporary nature regarding the nation? That the hardened Jews are now born that way? I've just had a quick check on Calvin and see nothing to suggest he differs at all. I assume that is so for most.

Ok, lets go back to Romas 11. The Hardened Jews are said to have been cut off, right? Are lost unhardened Jews cut off too?

Yes. Unbelief is the qualifier for being cut off.

In Him

Ian

 

Eric said,

And if He is free to save WHOM HE will, He can save them without the Gospel, they claim. To them, the Gospel is only "feeding the sheep" anyway.

Yes, He could have - if He wanted to; but He didn't. He has clearly shown us in His Word that He saves by revealing Himself to the individual, disclosing the truth to our hearts and in the doing so, changing that heart from its stoney state into 'a heart of flesh'. A heart that gladly embraces the truth revealed and its Revealor. The PBs are obviously carried away with human reasoning and fail to submit to what God says about His way of doing things.

Christ said few would find the truth, but that doesn't mean we can conclude that God arranged to shut them out. And no, living in Christian lands is no advantage, because so many here have seen Christianity only to be turned off by all the false stuff we have seen in the professing body at large, and whatever other excuses they come up with. Many are more truly hardened, and it would be easier for those in heathen lands to accept the Gospel.

Why then are so many more saved in 'Christian' lands? The truth is that God has determined who will be saved and where and when. If you don't believe that, you are left with salvation as a role of the dice: being born in hearing of the gospel stacks the odds for you; being born in heathendom virtually ensures your doom.

What you say about those who despise the gospel in our lands is true: but it only means severer damnation for them, not that it is harder to be saved here. Many more of our population are saved than in heathendom.

But then that would only be part of the "Script". Your statement would seem to justify God "passing them over" because "they didn't want Him anyway", but in your system, they didn't want Him because He set this whole system up in which they would be born that way, and left that way, because His plan was for them to be "vessels of wrath".

Script? As in Acts 4: 27"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. ? Or Acts 2: 22"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. ? Yes, there is a script; and there is human responsibility.

We're not talking about simply "believing that there is One God") as the devils do), but rather faith in the shed blood of the Son for our sin. That is not some good work like the Commandments, because this is God's method of covering our sins with the Blood. It is a remedy for something, not a universal act of good.

Yes, that is the faith that is pleasing to God. The other sort is not. To avoid my proof of TD you need to insist that TRUE faith is not pleasing to God. Do you?

In Him

Ian

 

Skandelon said,
Your teaching that hardened Jews are non-elect Jews seems to contradict everything I see even in reformed teachings. You seem to insist that being "hardened" must mean "non-elect" and I don't see any other scholars address that point. It may just be because none of them are being pressed on that issue in their writings and aren't forced to deal with it, but still I don't see any scholar making that link. Do you?

On Romans 11:8 Calvin comments: 'There is no doubt, I think, but that the passage quoted here from Isaiah is that which Luke refers to in Acts, as quoted from him, only the words are somewhat altered. Nor does he record here what we find in the Prophet, but only collects from him this sentiment, -- that they were imbued from above with the spirit of maliciousness, so that they continued dull in seeing and hearing. The Prophet was indeed bidden to harden the heart of the people: but Paul penetrates to the very fountain, -- that brutal stupor seizes on all the senses of men, after they are given up to this madness, so that they excite themselves by virulent stimulants against the truth. For he does not call it the spirit of giddiness, but of compunction, when the bitterness of gall shows itself; yea, when there is also a fury in rejecting the truth. And he declares, that by the secret judgment of God the reprobate are so demented, that being stupified, they are incapable of forming a judgment; for when it is said, that by seeing they see nothing, the dullness of their senses is thereby intimated.'

The non-elect Jews are not only blinded with the work of Satan that we all share in Total Depravity, but to this is added a giving up to this madness. And Calvin calls them reprobate.

He also makes the distinction between non-believing Jews and hardened Jews:
'They then, who perversely stumbled at Christ, fell and fell into destruction; yet the nation itself had not fallen, so that he who is a Jew must necessarily perish or be alienated from God.'


It seems to me that other reformed scholars teach we are all hardened and God chooses to "un-hardened" the elect at some point in their lives according to his good pleasure. You differ in that you believe those hardened could never actually be saved and thus couldn't ever have been the elect. That seems to differ from every scholar I have read. (When I speak of hardening here I am speaking of God's judicial, active hardening and not merely man's stubborn will or "self-hardening")

Calvinists certainly teach that we are all born blind, hardened against the gospel, and that God 'unhardens' whom He will; hearts of flesh given for hearts of stone. But that is separate from the hardening spoken of in Romans concerning the Jews. I've given you Calvin; perhaps you can quote some Reformed scholars to support your argument?

In Him

Ian

 

Eric,

The blindness to the gospel you referred to is that common to all men. Calvinism teaches we are all born blind, the god of this world working on our wicked natures to prevent the light of the gospel entering. This is the blindness that is removed by the saving Word: 2 Cor.4: 3But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.


in your system, God seems to be more likely to choose someone because they were born in a Christian land, and this would compromise unconditional election.

Remember, it is God who puts us wherever we are: no part of our life is chance. If God has determined to save us, He puts us in the place of the gospel. Maybe that means being born there; maybe going there; maybe someone bringing the gospel to our land. If He wants us to be Gentile believers, He causes us to be born Gentiles. If He wants us to be materially poor, base, foolish, He causes us to be born so. He does not choose us because we are any of these things, but determines what sort we will be.

In Him

Ian

 

Eric said,

But only after having individual repentance open to them, and continually refusing. Then yes, He may give some more chances than others. But in no case is it unconditional eternal reprobation.

It is your use of 'open' and 'unconditional' that we dispute. The gospel is freely offered to them: God does not stand in their way and say, 'This is not for you'. It is their wicked nature that refuses - and always will refuse, unless God grants them repentance, gives them a new heart. I hold to reprobation based on this wickedness, so it is inaccurate to call it unconditional.

Actually, with all the gentiles who have gotten saved, compared to those who haven't (including the ones you keep mentioning in lands without ther Gospel), you would have to conclude that "the majority of them shall not have this mercy" either. So there would be no essential difference between the Gentiles and Jews as groups; most would be hardened, with only relative few "elected" (and "hardening" is usually assumed to be just the omissive "act" of God leaving a sinner in his sins. You are claiming it is something special done to Israelites before they are born, but that would be redundant, and essentially no different from the TD tht makes everyone "blind" and unable to repent).
So yes, the whole point is that "It was expected that ALL of the nation would be saved, for they were the people of the Promise", and that instead, we are shown that there IS no essential difference between Jews and Gentiles, as all are concluded in sin. But still, one group is hardened to the light it did have; while the light is spread to the other. That's the difference.

The difference is that Israel, instead of all being saved, have a remnant saved; and the Gentiles, instead of all being lost, have a remnant saved. There is no difference as regarding salvation: all start out lost; some are then saved. But the contrast is with regard to the former case of each group: one was the Chosen People; the other, those without hope.

As to the nature of the special blindness given to the Jews, see my Calvin quote in my post to Skan.

Which then is not "real", but only part of the script. God writes that these people are "guilty" even though they had no real choice.

You say their choice was not real; that is to deny their responsibility for their wicked nature.

Must rush

In Him

Ian