Why do Calvinists on this board think my arguments are "new"???

This is sad. Those ignorant of the past are destined to repeat its mistakes. </font>[/QUOTE]Bzzzt. Try again. You're trying to make it sound as if your arguments are found in Arminius. I am reading the site and I have yet to find any such arguments. The best you've been able to provide so far are quotes that deal with hardening. Whoop-tee-doo.

Of course the issue of hardening played a significant role in the classical debate! Guess what they're talking about? Hardening. In most cases where the issue of hardening is raised, the focal point is God's sovereignty. One side says God can harden whomever he pleases. The other side takes the Ben Franklin view, that "God hardens those who harden themselves."

Now what does that have to do with your bizarre soteriology? Nothing. Your premise is that total depravity is interchangeable with God's hardening of those who harden themselves.

You haven't come within light years of showing that the soteriology you preach has anything to do with this article, the writings of Arminius, the writings of Calvin, or anyone else except you. So your attempt to chalk it all up to "so you haven't read Arminius, what poow widdle sad peopew you are" is pathetic.

 

This is sad. Those ignorant of the past are destined to repeat its mistakes. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is this sad? The Bible is my authority. I don't need either one of these. They are outdated. I have read many modern writers and modern scholars on the topic so it is not as if I am uninformed. I am not ignorant of the past, nor am I ignorant of Scripture. That is why I find your arguments so totally unconvincing.

When I start following Calvin or ARminius, then I will start reading them. I have no real need to since I deal with very few people who need more than what God's word has to say. So long as I am a preacher of God's word, I will maintain my allegiance to it.

 

Yes, you do, as I'll illustrate in a moment.

That's what I mean. This is called (once again) arguing from ignorance. Calvinists refer to many prooftexts that show total depravity. You take texts that specifically describe hardening, and then apply them without basis to the other texts that do not refer to hardening.

So when calvinists point to texts that indicate no one can come to God unless they are enabled, or no one seeks God, etc., you argue (from ignorance) that these either texts must not really describe total depravity, or they must be referring to hardening.

Of course, you provide no Biblical evidence whatsoever that this is true, which is why it is called arguing from ignorance.

Then, you try to shift the burden of proof to the calvinists to demonstrate that it's not true (that variation on the devious debate tactic of arguing from ignorance, as I described it here).

So it's no wonder these arguments aren't worth refuting. They have their basis in nothing but debate tactics.

 

Shifting the burden of proof in order to establish your equivocation and non-sequitur. If I give the obvious definition of hardening, you point to John 6 and say "See? They cannot respond to the gospel, therefore they must be hardened!" Yawn. A moron can anticipate that tactic. (And since I'm a moron, I've just proved it.)

Non-sequitur and arguing from ignorance. You identify two things that have similarities and then say that it follows (non-sequitur - it does not follow) that they refer to the same thing. You do this without any scriptural evidence that the passages refer to the same thing (arguing from ignorance).

In reality, there are several extremely significant differences between the two passages.

I could take those differences point by point, but it is a waste of time debating with a game player who has no interest in the truth. The bottom line is that if John 6:65 referred to hardening, it would communicate the message, "Those who are hardened cannot come to Me because they are disabled (hardened) by the Father."

But it doesn't say anything close to that. "No one" excludes all. There is no provision for those who are not hardened. And it says "enabled/given to", which communicates that God must actively enable someone or give something to someone in order for them to "come to Me". That does not communicate the idea that God is "removing" His hardening, but enabling them to have something the do not have to begin with.

So your deceptive debate tactics, while entertaining at first, are useless.

[ April 06, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Oh, my.

It sounds like we have some differences of opinion. I sure hope you two can work out you differences in a kindly manner.

Honestly, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue but it does seem that the bible's teaching about certain people being hardened would be fairly imporant to understanding Romans 9. Am I wrong?

 

You are right. Hardening is an extremely important issue. The difference of opinion here is not about hardening, however, nor is it about sovereignty, which is usually what people discuss when they deal with Romans 9 and hardening.

Bill has introduced the novel idea that the verses that teach total depravity actually refer to people who God hardened (because they first hardened themselves). It requires arguing from ignorance (adding hardening to passages that don't talk about it and even contradict it) and non-sequiturs (arguments that simply assume that if X is true, it follows that Y must also be true, even though there is no support for that conclusion).

 

It is ultimately about hardening and sovereignty, becasue Calvinists center their whole position around Romans 9 and the other passages about inability and "blinding". From here it is assumed that God deliberately hardens individuals to damn them "for His glory" in contrast to the "elect". But under the premise of "single predestination" they deny that God is doing anything to the non-elect, so then "hardening" just means "leaving them in their state of depravity", which is then said to be "just". But still, hardening is an active move attributed to God, "so they may not see" (John 12/Isaiah) so still, this hardening as it is commonly understood, is connected with their damnation compared with the salvation of the elect. Calvinists have lumped all of these scriptures together as "all of the scriptural proof they have", so don't anybody now say these are "two things that have similarities ... (non-sequitur - it does not follow) that they refer to the same thing."
Where Bill's view differs slightly from mine in some respects (which I still have to weigh and consider), he is basically on the mark about the temporal purpose of hardening, according to the contexts in scripture. If man is so depraved, he does not need to be "hardened" in order to be judged, so hardening is either for a group in general for a revealed future purpose, or for individuals who have already rejected many opportunities (Bill makes these both the same, if I read correctly, and this is the main difference between us. The Calvinists are also making them the same, but it is assumed to be always individuals and always eternal damnation).
This is quite central to the debate. I don't see how people can now be claiming this is "nothing anyone is talking about".

 

That is a blatant misrepresentation of calvinism. Those I've read regarding election (and that includes people like Luther, who precede Calvin) regard the passage in Romans 9 on hardening as reflecting God's sovereignty. I have never seen any Calvinists equate blinding/hardening with inability in a reciprocal sense. Of course if you're blinded you can't see, but not all those who cannot see have been blinded - many were born blind.

Similarly, the calvinist assumption is that we are born unwilling and therefore unable to respond to the Gospel. There are plenty of scriptures that communicate this very thing without ever mentioning hardening.

Again, you have misrepresented the calvinist position here. To say that "God deliberately hardens individuals to damn them" assumes your conclusion is correct and then puts it in the mouths of calvinists.

If you understand this, then why do you insist they believe something else?

Again, you have asserted your conclusion without ever providing any support for it. The error here is "compared with the salvation of the elect". But that is not what the Bible says, it is what you say. The Bible simply says God hardens whom He will. We have some examples of God hardening people, such as Pharoah. That example communicates that God hardened Pharoah not to damn him vs. the elect, but to manipulate his anger in order to bring plague after plague, which would eventually get Pharoah to a point where he'd not only release the Hebrews, but let the Hebrews plunder the Egyptians in the process! After that, God displayed His glory in the parting of the Red Sea because Pharoah was so hardened as to want to enslave them yet again! So hardening is not all about salvation at all.

One reason Paul brings it up in Romans 9, however, is to answer any critics who would say that hardening Pharoah was unfair. But Paul says the obvious - God hardens whomever He will, and has mercy on whomever He will. Get over it.

Well, if you're honest, you'll admit that this is not the case. I just illustrated it isn't. See above.

Circular reasoning. This conclusion is only true if you assume that the purpose of hardening is to be damned, which is YOUR STARTING PREMISE, which calvinists assert is false.

It is only central to YOUR concept of what constitutes the debate. Calvinists aren't even talking about this issue at all, because they don't assume that hardening is equivalent to total depravity.

 

Oh, yeah, I'm petrified that you'll whip another argument from ignorance on me.

I have illustrated differences between hardening and TD in numerous places, including the above post. Read it.

 

Yes. You obviously didn't read that post you said didn't address the question.