IF CALVINISM IS TRUE, WHY AREN'T ALL BELIEVERS CALVINISTIC?

He was "brought to his senses" in teh pig sty, a reference to the spiritual awakening that caused him to return home. So regeneration, or efficacious enabling by God, enabled him to repent. </font>[/QUOTE]But I think it is clear that even those who are in the pig sty choose, because of pride and hardened hearts, to remain though they know their father will recieve them back. It is for this reason they are held accountable. The son didn't have to return. He chose to return.

 

No, Paul is rebuking UNBELIEVING Jews in general, and warning them of the consequences of refusing the Word. Some of his Jewish audience had believed his preaching; so it is to the rest he speaks...

Yes, I have said this all along. He is speaking in general about all unbelieving Jews. And he clearly tells why the CAN'T believe stating clearly that had they not been hardened they MIGHT HAVE. That is what you have to keep avoiding.

It is not correct to equate the Jews with the Gentiles when considering God's saving work among them. The Gentiles are naturally blind, like the Jews.

Scripture? Naturally means "from birth." Even here in this passage it says they "BECOME" hardened and never that they are born as such. It even goes on to say "otherwise they might believe." So they BECOME something that made them unable otherwise they would have been ABLE. Its that simple.

Yes, but if you hold it does not separate them into believing and unbelieving, then you must hold that Paul said ALL Gentiles would be saved. Manifestly that was not the case.

Not if Paul is speaking GENERALLY. In summary, Paul says Gentiles have obtained righteousness. Obviously, he is only speaking of Gentiles in general and not each of them individually which proves that this chapter has been about nations in general. The Gentiles being shown mercy and the Jews being hardened. Its funny how you are willing to read the text as it applies to nations when it suits your interpretation, but not when it doesn't. Be consistant.

As I pointed out above, the Jews were composed of those who did believe Paul's word and those who rejected it. Paul then said he was going to the Gentiles, who would hear/believe. NOT all Gentiles, only the elect.

Wrong. God clearly calls his followers to go to all creatures and preach the gospel and He never indicates that they are to go to all just because they don't know who the elect are, but instead indicates that they are to go to all so that all may be saved.

Secondly, there are two conditions being discussed here. Hardened and Unhardened. Those able to see, hear and understand and those who are not. The Jews, before their being hardened, WERE able but now they are not. The Gentiles who have yet to hear are clearly still able, thus they are not hardened in the way that the Jews are.

You are doing the same thing you say I'm wrong in doing! You say the Gentiles are being ingrafted as a nation - but then you qualify that by saying, only the believing Gentiles. That is my point, Paul is distinguishing between believing Gentiles and unbelieving ones; between believing Jews and unbelieving ones.

The difference is clear though Ian. You make the dividing line based upon God's choosing to show mercy on some individuals and his choosing to harden other individuals when Paul is clearly not talking about individuals. He is speaking about showing mercy to Gentiles and hardening Jews IN GENERAL.

I do what Paul does and speak generally throughout the entire passage. God shows mercy to the Gentiles in general just as the Gentiles obtain righteousness through faith in general. And the Jews are being hardened in general just as they have stumbled in general. I'm consistant in my interpretation where as you switch from Paul speaking specifically about elect individuals and non-elect individuals when it is clear he is speaking in general about two nations.

Did Paul mean that ALL who heard him that day and didn't repent were the hardened? I think that unlikely. The text seems to indicate some disputing among even the unbelievers. What Paul said was a warning to all who refused the word at that time. 'Beware lest this prophecy be found true of you personally.' It certainly was true of the majority of Jews; but might not be true of any individual.

Well, now we go back to the circle of our debate of Paul warning people about something they have absolutely no control over.

John Calvin on Rom.11: 11. 'Have they stumbled, etc. You will be greatly hindered in understanding this argument, except you take notice, that the Apostle speaks sometimes of the whole nation of the Jews, and sometimes of single individuals; for hence arises the diversity, that onewhile he speaks of the Jews as being banished from the kingdom of God, cut off from the tree and precipitated by God’s judgment into destruction, and that at another he denies that they had fallen from grace, but that on the contrary they continued in the possession of the covenant, and had a place in the Church of God.

But Calvin is not supporting your view that the elect are not hardened. He seems to hold to the view that the hardened may still be elect. At least that is the way I understand him. He seems to be arguing that the hardened Jews are not all reprobates without hope.
I'm accustom to Calvinists arguing that those hardened may still be elect. You seem to take it another root by trying to maintain the idea that you so called elect ones could have never been "hardened."

Let me add, some of the difficulty comes from confusing the hardened part of the nation with the nation as such, for sometimes it is referred to in those terms and we are expected to know the difference. So 'blindness in part' refers to the nation; but the individuals concerned make up only part of the nation. Where's the asprin?

I need a asprin trying to keep up with your view too? There is so much switching back and forth from individuals to nations back to individuals it really is difficult. Why not understand it as all speaking in general. God show mercy to the Gentiles who have obtained righteousness through faith and has hardened the Jews in general, except for a remnant who he selected to carry the message of redemption to the world, the rest were hardened temporarily but can be saved if they leave their unbelief. Its really not that difficult.

I'm not denying the witness of nature and conscience, just its saving ability. The saints you mentioned were SAVED by the gospel, never mind how much or little light they had before. And Abraham especially - he had God's DIRECT communication, not just nature or conscience.

Where does scripture deny its saving ability? It seems that Paul is trying to prove they have everything they need to acknowledge God as God and therefore are without excuse. If you save its not enough to save then they would have an excuse for not being saved. Right?

Paul explains this in Romans. The exact same problem exists for the Jew under the Law as for the heathen with nature and consciece only - their evil hearts will not respond toward God, but always against Him.

Where does it say that they will always respond against him? It says that they are not righteous or that they fall short of God's glory, but it says nothing about an inability to respond in faith toward God's revelation. In fact, Romans 21 seems to show that this righteousness only requires faith, which is possible whereas "works" based salvation was not, nor was it intended to be. Faith has always been the means by which men are justified, whether Jew or Gentile, for God is not partial.

If an unevangelised man responded with faith and repentance toward God as revealed in nature and conscience, they he would be saved, or at least God would get the gospel to them. It is his evil heart that prevents it. If he is truly able, why is the gospel sent to him? It is because man is unable to do what is right that the gospel must come. It is God's appointed way of salvation. None other.

I don't disagree. But could it be that God seeks those, like Lydia, who worship Him and send the gospel to them by the effectual calling of his messengers, as he did Jonah? Make sense?

The degree of light is not the problem or the answer. It is the state of the heart. Men even blasphemed the Holy Spirit when they knew Christ's good works were done through Him. The answer is to be given a new heart. God gives that to His elect in their hearing of the gospel.

But the state of man's hearts seems to be different depending upon their response to the gospel and not depending upon their being born that way. Notice that the people in Romans 1 BECAME futile in their thinking. It doesn't say they were born like that. These who have allowed their hearts to grow hardened must be broken or softened, which can be accomplished through a number of means that God is not obligated to supply, but He might. I agree some are in need of such means, but you assume that all men are born in such a state, but scripture never teaches that.

I was born in a Christian home and asking me when I first knew Jesus as Lord is like asking me when I first knew Mary was my mother. I've always known it and believed it to be true. My heart was never hardened to that truth, thank God. Now, don't confuse two issues by talking about sin and guilt. I was born a sinner and in need of a savior. I was guilty and fell short of God's glory, but my heart never grew hardened. It had that potential. I know others who have similiar backgrounds who refused to believe their parents teaching and the more they refused the harder their hearts grew. They fit themselves for destruction just as the Jews of old have done and they will stand without excuse.

 

Ok, lets try a different approach. Lets pretend we are both white bigots back before the Civil Rights movement who have been taught all our lives that anglos are the only chosen race, ok? Now, remember that all the people you respect the most believe and teach that only white anglos are going to be saved and all others are without hope and God hasn't ever provided a means for them to enter covenant with him or receive eternal life. One day you get blinded on a road and are told by God that your wrong and that He has actually chosen all people for salvation and not just anglo people. So, you go out and start telling people the truth but all the people you have grown up with think you're a heretic and they want you dead. You spend most of you time trying to convince your anglo friends that black, hispanics, and every other nationality has been chosen by God. You become known as the apostle to non-anglos and start perdominately non-anglo churches all over your state while being persecuted for it all along the way. This is Paul's world. Keep that in mind when reading certain passages such as Thess. 2:14 where Paul thanks God for choosing them etc. It takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

Now, go to Acts 13 again and read the entire passage with this context in mind. As an apostle to the non-anglos you have just been told that the non-anglos aren't worthy of eternal life by anglos who don't believe your message. You respond to them saying, "Then Ian grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you anglos first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the non-anglos. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:
'I have set you as a light to the those who are not anglo,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.'"*
48 Now when the non-anglos heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

Now, don't you see how that verse would be so far out of place with your interpretation? I'm not saying it's not possible, but it doesn't fit the rest of the context. It seems to be saying that all people who had been appointed to eternal life, regardless of their skin color, were proving it by their faith. So, even if individuals are in view here they are in view as representatives of being non-anglos who are proving the anglos wrong by the fact they are believing and the anglos are not. Does that make it more clear or did I just confuse the issue more?

I disagree. I think propitiation could be made available to all but only applicable to those who recieve it. The priest in the OT days offered the sacrifice for all the people, though not all the people repented. Christ could appease the wrath of God for all sin, but men who refuse such provisions could be judged based upon their response to God's provision made known in his word. John 12 seems to indicate that men are indeed judged by their response to Christ's words. Had Christ never came then men would have stood condemned for their sin nature alone without hope, but because of Christ's work, men have a choice. His work gave men that choice.

 

Yes, obviously from our discussion on Acts you know I understand that. I just mean that Paul is speaking of two groups: One the nation of Israel and the other the Gentiles or non-Jews. This changes nothing.

No Paul doesn't, he just says, "Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith." Romans 9:30 By your reasoning you would think that Paul means ALL Gentiles have attained righteousness simply because he doesn't qualify the word "Gentiles." He is clearly speaking in general about the group. I guess you could say he is sterotyping, like when people say, "White men can't jump." I know a few white guys who get up! But for the most part we could agree that white dudes can't jump like others might be able to. Its really not that difficult to understand Paul's meaning. The Gentiles, in general, are attaining righteousness while the Jews, in general, are stumbling. They are not stumbling beyond recovering, because those stumbling may be provoked to envy and be saved. What is so difficult about that?

 

But at that time and from Paul's perspective (especially speaking comparitively) it is true. Ian, he has to be speaking in general about the group or you have to add in a qualifier that Paul doesn't add.

In general the Gentiles were believing and in general the Jews were stumbling. Do you disagree with that?

 

Before you answer you might consider these verses:

Ac 14:27 -
Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.

Ro 9:30 -
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;

Ac 15:7 -
And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Ac 28:28 -
"Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!"

2Ti 4:17 -
But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that the message might be preached fully through me, and that all the Gentiles might hear. (how many?)

Ga 3:8 -
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

Ga 3:14 -
that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Mt 12:18 -
"Behold! My Servant whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased! I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He will declare justice to the Gentiles.

Mt 12:21 - Show Context
And in His name Gentiles will trust."

Ac 11:18 -
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

Ac 13:46 -
Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

Ac 18:6 -
But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

Ac 26:20 -
but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

Ac 28:28 -
"Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!"

Ro 3:29 -
Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,

Ro 11:11 -
I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

Notice this last passage, which is clearly speaking about these two groups in general. The "rest" of the Jews who were not apart of the firstfruits (the remnant) those who in general had stumbled had not stumbled beyond recovery, they still could be saved and the hardening of the Jews has allowed for salvation to come to the Gentiles. Why doen't it say that the hardening of the non-elect Jews has allowed for salvation to come to the elect Gentiles? It doesn't make any sense from your perspective.

The truth of the matter is that we both qualify the word Gentiles with the understanding that its only those who believe that will benefit, but it doesn't change the fact that he speaks about them all as a group which connotes the idea that it IS possible for whosoever. Statements like "The door of salvation has been open to the Gentiles" and "all the Gentiles shall hear," certainly supports the idea that any one of those who are among the Gentiles have the opportunity to be saved. To suggest otherwise goes against the clear meaning of these texts.
___________________________

Edited only to correct an unfortunate spelling error. Lasrry

[ August 18, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Blessings to you. I'm taking a break for a while myself.

If I don't see you here, I'll see you there!

Its been fun.