I believe TULIP

I thought we were talking about the hardening of Israel and that God had done this so they would not believe in Christ and etc. </font>[/QUOTE]I am. I'm sorry I've explained this several times on other threads so sometimes I assume that everyone is following. I believe that the bible teaches that we can hardened ourselves by our own choices. We can see a warning against this in Heb. 3 for example. But the Bible also teaches us about a hardening by God's will.

I believe that the Israelites were first hardened by their own will and rebellion. God "longed to gather them" and he "held out his hands to them" but they refused to obey thus they become "self hardened." God had a plan to bring redemption through these people even in the midst of their hardened rebellion, so he sealed them in their hardenness by his divine hardening so that none of the miracles and other revelations of God could break their orginal self-hardening. Why?

1. Someone had to crucify Christ.
2. They had to be hardened for the ingrafting of the Gentiles. Who, by their belief, would provoke the Israelites to envy so that they too might believe and be saved.

So, go back to Pharoah as a model. He was self hardened in that he didn't want to let the Israelites go. This was completely an act of his will that made him set or hardened in that decision. God's plan was to reveal his power and glory through the plagues, but these powerful displays of God's power were sure to convince anyone, even a self hardened Pharoah, to submit if left to their own reason, thus he was hardened in his will by God. So, he was given "a spirit of stupor" so that he couldn't reason and let the people go before God was finished displaying his power through all the plagues. If you read through the story you can see that Pharoah had decided to let God's people go a time or two but God hardens him so as to accomplish his purpose.

Its much the same with the Israelites. They have already rebelled against God. God chose to harden them in that rebellion in order to use them to accomplish a divine purpose. Why did God have to harden them if they were already self hardened? Apparantly, Christ's miracles and teachings could gave opened their eyes had God not hardened them by his sovereign will thus leaving no one to accomplish his purpose on the cross.

This is why God told his disciples to keep things quite until the right time and he veiled his teachings in parables, he didn't want people to start believing yet because he needed them to crucify him. Now, it just doesn't make sense for Jesus to veil the gospel and tell his Apostles to keep in quite if everyone is born unable to believe without the Spirit. There wouldn't have been any reason to keep it quite, they could believe it unless God granted it to them to believe anyway so why keep it quite. The only reason would be to prevent people from believing in Him until the right time, which makes no since if Calvinism is true.

 

Yes, hardening is a result of the sin nature or depravity if you'd rather, but my point is man doesn't start hardened, he becomes that way. Therefore he doesn't start unable to see, hear, understand and be converted; he becomes that way. That is a significant step away from Total Depravity as taught by Calvinism.

This is why Jesus condemns the Pharisees:

Mt 23:15
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are!

How do you make someone more "fit for hell." You hardened them with false security by making them believe that salvation comes through the works of the law and self righteousness. The most difficult people to witness to are people who are set in their false beliefs. Why? They have made up their minds, they are hardened.

Let me give you an example:

I met and spoke with a young lady several months ago in a library who has never really had any religious influences and has not really ever "rebelled" from God, because she really didn't know much about Him. She believed that God "probably" existed but she was not fimilar enough with scripture to really even know the gospel. I told her the gospel message. She wept and later that day asked Christ to save her soul. She was a sinner, no doubt, and she needed a savior, but I don't believe she was hardened. She didn't have all the baggage that so many others I have come in contact with have.

I remember in College witnessing to a Muslim and seeing his head continually shake in disagreement as I spoke to him about Christ. By the end of our conversation he was much less disagreeable but I remember he said to me, "I couldn't believe this even if I wanted to. My family and all my friends would completely disown me." He left unchange (as far as I know). He was hardened by false beliefs. Does that mean he couldn't believe? No, not unless God sovereignly decided to hardened him in his decision in order to accomplish his purpose through him. What could possibly break his hardened heart. The gospel, the call of the HS, envy, love of believers, prayer, the fear of wrath, hardships, tragedy and a host of other things that provoke the will of man.

Yes, but what part do you disagree with? How do you explain why God veils the gospel if no one can believe it apart from God's allowing it anyway?

Actually Dallas this is what I hung on to as my defense against this view when I was a Calvinist and I think its Calvinism's strongest argument against this view, however the reason I couldn't continue to hold to this view is:

The bible does state things are different for the Gentiles.

"The Gentiles will listen" as opposed to the Israelites who "are hearing but never perceiving."

The Israelites are being Sovereignly hardened as God gives them a Spirit of Stupor, while none the less "grafting in the Gentiles." How is that not different? One group is being nationally hardened while the other group is being nationally grafted in.

2. The only reason stated in scripture that certain people cannot believe is in regard to this hardening as seen in John 12:37-41. The direct reason that these people cannot believe in Christ is because God gave them hardened hearts. Nothing like that is spoken of in regard to the Gentiles. You argue that their is a "remnant" of the Gentiles just like there is a "remnant" of the Israelites, but scripture never says that. The remnant of Israel were the first to trust in Christ and were those who ushered in the gospel of faith to the world, that is unique and divine and only should be applied universally if clearly taught in the text, I had to reluctantly admit that it is not thus leading me to abandon my Calvinism. (which is VERY difficult to do, especially when your as "hardened" as I was in that system )

I don't mean to patronize or speak down to you in anyway, but I honestly believe that if you continue to honestly deal with the "WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE" you will eventually believe otherwise. Of course, I could be wrong, I have been before.

I don't believe that "all of Israel" was hardened. The remnant were not.

 

You believe this yet teach that man is only able to react in one way when confronted by the gospel. How can that be?

 

You believe this yet teach that man is only able to react in one way when confronted by the gospel. How can that be? </font>[/QUOTE]In the lost position man sees nothing to act upon, when moved upon by the Holy Spirit effectually man imagines he has acted to believe in Christ. In truth, those who are lost and elected stand in an eternal position and view of God the Father as being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Those who are not elected and we also may view the unsaved as having chosen because of one or the other reason however, they react only upon their depraved nature and this continually separates them from God.
</font>[/QUOTE]Dallas,

Let me ask you a question. Israel was God's chosen (or elect) nation, right? Yet, we know that not everyone in Israel was saved, right? We also know that God elected to share the message of repentance with Ninevah, yet they ended up rejecting the message, right?

Elected or chosen, simply means those whom God has chosen to give or present something to. He chose to reveal himself and work through the Israelite nation, thus they were elect. That doesn't necessitate their salvation any more that God's desire for all to be saved necessitates that everyone will be saved.

God obviously, even by Calvinistic beliefs, CHOSE or elected to share the gospel message with the world. Before Christ that was limited to the elect nation of Israel. So, we could rightly say that the world is elect, because they, like Israel in the OT, have been chosen to hear the word of the Lord, which is offered to "whosoever" and "any one who" throughout the scripture. The world has been elected to hear the message. Out of that world there were individuals who are elected to carry that message by God inspiration, they were called apostles. I also imagine that God will choose particular people through the course of history to fulfill certain tasks who might also be refered to as being"elect," or "chosen by God."

In Romans 9 when Paul says, "in order that God's purpose in election might stand," what purpose was he speaking about? I think it was the purpose of bringing salvation by the blood of Christ to the world through the nation of Israel. The nation was elected for the purpose of accomplishing redemption for the world and that purpose was fulfilled through them in three ways, (1) genelogy of Jesus, (2) their hardening and (3) their proclaimation of the gospel. Some of them were hardened and some of them became apostles. Out of the same lump of Clay, as Paul explains, came vessels used for honor and others used for common use.

It just seems to me that you apply the term "elect" to a group of elite people when in fact since Christ's work everyone has been chosen to hear the message.

 

Did you even read my post. Yes I believe the Apostles were elected to a unique task and divinly equipped to carry it out. But that whole last post that you ignored was explaining that I believe everyone has been chosen (or elected) to hear the gospel, which was unique to the elect nation of Israel before Christ's coming. Anyone who is invited has in a sense been elected to come. Who is invited?

Everyone!

Calvinists apply the term "elect" to exclusively mean those who are saved. But God choses people for various tasks, both common and noble.

For example, Pharoah was elected by God.

I can hear the gasps of disbelieve.

But hear me out. He was elected (chosen by God) to be hardened for the purpose displaying his power and purpose to the world through the plagues on Egypt.

Calvinists take this simple term "elect" as if its a word only used to discribe those who will be saved. I don't agree.

God chose prophets, priests, kings, apostles, and even those who he would hardened to fulfill a purpose such as Judas. He also chose Israel to be the line of Christ and the nation who would introduce redemption to the world through the words of the prophets and apostles. He chose the nations (Gentiles) to hear this message of faith and repentance, and in that sense everyone has been chosen. Everyone is elect when it comes to the hearing of the gospel. Though I do believe that some are elected (chosen by God) to carry out unique tasks within God's sovereign will.

 

Then why did you write: And this from a brother who counts the elect to be only those with a prophecy or ushering the church age?

I don't "count the elect to be only those with a prophecy or ushering the church age."

I've fully explained what I believe about elect but it seems like you don't understand. Are you just not wanting to spend the time to formulate a argument or are you really just not understanding me?

 

My "elitist" position is only one of our two system that claims that the "elite" are actually elite. You make the apostles just like the rest of Christianity and I don't agree with that.

Do you not believe that the divine messagers of God are "elite?"

1. They learned directly from God Incarnate
2. They were the first to trust in Christ
3. They were appointed as divine messagers
4. They were inspired in their preaching and their writings
5. God revealed to them the mysteries of the kingdom
6. They were granted unique and supernatural abilities

You wouldn't call these people elite in comparison to the rest of Christians? Of course you would say they are elite, meaning set apart for a speacial purpose, and so do educated Arminians. Paul is not like you and I regardless of what you or anyone else might claim. Yes, it can be argued that he was Sovereignly saved in the same manner that we were, but I don't see that supported in the text.

I do believe that those who were the first to present the message to the world were elected for that specific task and supernaturally gifted in accomplishing that task. Do you disagree?

I believe that those who hear their message were not Sovereignly willed to respond for or against that message but that it was left to their own consideration.

For example, Jonah was sovereignly appointed to preach to Ninevah but Ninevah was not sovereignly appointed to respond in one way are another. That is clear in the text.

I believe the apostles were elected to there position of apostleship by God and I believe the world was elected to hear their message. Therefore my "elitist" view doesn't in anyway afford the complaints that Calvinism affords.