A Calvinist answers Mark 4 and talks about hardening.

[Guest]

I asked the same question at another forum and so far (after a few couple days) no one's offered a decent response.

Ely

Yeah,

That has been my experience until Dustin's answer. Although I did find one forum with Reformed folk that was pretty edifying over HERE.

[Guest]

Suffered? I enjoyed every minute of it.

[Guest]

Hey guys,

But Total Depravity demands that they never had this ability. If so, the quesiton remains, how could they lose something (through self-hardening, through Jesus' use of parables, or both) that they never had in the first place?

I appreciate the responses, but what would help me to gain a better understanding, is if someone could interact with what he says here a bit more specifically.

It seems that everyone is only reading his initial answer, and then, responding with my original question.

The reason I responded with the original question is because like Steve said in the original thread on this topic, there is probably not a sufficient answer. It seems to me that from a Calvie prospective it's an "either/or" proposition. Either they were elected and able to understand, or they were hardened and not able to. I mean, that's Calvinism in a nutshell.

If you want to look at this Scripture through those lenses, then it just makes no sense for hearts to be hardened. Brody mentioned that their response might be that God is taking what "little they have" from them, but like Ely already pointed out, they didn't have "little" to take away in the first place.

[Guest]

Heb 4:12 said: Brody mentioned that their response might be that God is taking what "little they have" from them, but like Ely already pointed out, they didn't have "little" to take away in the first place.

In Dustin's post, he explains this, showing the Jews "believing" on Him and later calling these same people children of the devil.

I think this "believing" is the little that was taken. Anyway, it's in his post (ref. to John eight), you can refer there, I'm going to quit refering eveyone to his answer now.

I have my question, and I have his answer. What would be helpful, in my opinion, is to show how he is wrong. That's all I was saying.

Thanks,

[Guest]

I have my question, and I have his answer. What would be helpful, in my opinion, is to show how he is wrong. That's all I was saying.

Derek, first of all, do you think he has answered the question and resolved the basic problem? If so, where do you think he did so?

[Guest]

I have my question, and I have his answer. What would be helpful, in my opinion, is to show how he is wrong. That's all I was saying.

Derek, first of all, do you think he has answered the question and resolved the basic problem? If so, where do you think he did so?

Hi Ely,

I don't think he proved the Arminian interpretation wrong or anything, but I do think he has harmonized the passage in question with the Reformed understanding of the whole of scripture. As for which specific part of his answer he resolved the problem, I think his whole answer has apparently solved it. He has shown that both totat inability and this passage can be harmonized.

This doesn't mean that it proves Calvinism to be the truth or anything. Any honest person would agree that this is a difficult passage for them to interpret.

To be honest, I have been debating this with Calvinists for days now, and would rather not debate Arminians about the same thing now. I realize it would take time to go through it and refute the thing, so no sweat if you don't want to.

I said above that I thought points 1 and 2 of his summary were good points but no one responded to those points.

It just seems kind of silly for me to keep refering everyone back to his answer. That's why I am looking for a more point to point response rather than "he didn't answer the question" or something of the kind.

I say this because he did answer the question. It's the first post on this page. You may not agree, or think that he did very well, but he did answer it.

Anyway, it's ok with me if you don't think it's a good answer. I don't even know if I accept it.

[Guest]

So, there is a sense in which the non-elect Jews here may hypothetically be saved if they’ll only repent and believe per God’s moral will, but God’s sovereign decree will be fulfilled nonetheless so there is no actual saving grace given to them as they are reprobate

Huh?

This is typical Calvinist double-talk, wherein they engage in contradictions illogic and fallacies.

Calvinists argue from unBiblical and contradictory positions, and then pretend there is no problem with this. Its rhetorical base is found in the following two jingles, and is really no better:

The little boy with his boots on stood sitting there.

and:

You can and you can't
You shall and you shant
You will and you won't
You'll be damned if you don't

[Guest]

This is typical Calvinist double-talk, wherein they engage in contradictions illogic and fallacies

Hi Sola,

Welcome to the forum.

Where, in the statement that you quoted, are the "contradictions, illogic and fallacies"?

In other words, which law of logic did they break? Which fallacies are present?

In the jingle you presented, there are contradictions, but to quote from an article, and then argue against a jingle, as if that is what Calvinists teach, is to pursue a straw man.

The statement you quoted may be wrong, unbiblical, etc. But it's not illogical as far as I can see. Maybe you caught something I didn't.

[Guest]

Actually, I misqouted the first jingle. It goes like this:

The BAREFOOT boy with his boots on stood sitting there.

As to the contradictions, fallacies and doubletalk--well, I read the article! After my spinning head recovered, I pasted a small sample.

Contradictory it is to say God wants to save all, but secretly doesn't, so He reprobates them with no hope. They were made to burn forever because He felt like it. Then He says he wants to save all and is good to all???

It is illogical because it violates our own reason and conscience to be this way. It would be criminal in men to do this, and when Israel offered some of their children to Moloch to burn, the Lord destroyed them. And yet He offers His children to...Hellfire for what purpose?

It is illogical to hold to a contradiction. It is illogical to say both views are true--THEY ARE NOT!

It is a fallacy and begs the question to explain away all the universal passages and promises regarding the atonement and God's desire to save all so none perish by saying there is a secret will that actually makes all the choices for mankind, and unfortunately, most don't hit the Big, Lucky Jackpot of the Sky, and so they are to burn forever. It is a fallacy to explain away all those verses and passages with the "secret will" myth. It is reading into those precious promises and stated desires a massive contradiction.

Lastly, everything we know about God and His nature, as revealed in Scripture is against all Calvinistic thinking. This is indirect evidence, but it is cumulative and overwhelming.

God does not offer with his right hand, only to take away with his left hand. The offers are genuine and REAL, or the offers are the CRUELEST MOCKERIES NO MIND COULD EVER CONCEIVE!

Remember, does NOT PASSING BY a downed sinner make you more like God, or more like the Scribes and Pharisees? Calvinism makes God unlike the Good Samaritan, and hence, Calvinism is false. The true source of Calvisnistic thinking is from the Scribes and Pharisees, not our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Guest]

Wow. Upon another read through the original answer to this question (the first post), what originally sounded like a good Calvinist answer sounds rather silly to me now.

It is incredibly strange that God would act and speak as if He loves and has sought to save everyone, "hypothetically", but secretly has "decreed" something else altogether.

That God would reprobate, those that have no need of reprobation, due to total inability, just doesn't make sense no matter how fancy of an explanation can be offered (and I suppose this brother's answer is about as articulate as one could hope for). But it just boils down to quoteing Calvinist scholars and no real exegesis.

Steve said it best here (regarding Mark 4:12):

Obviously, if these Calvinist assumptions (totat depravity) were correct, and if God did not wish for a man to repent or believe, there would never be any occasion for God to further harden a man's heart or conceal His message in mysteries, since the man's default condition, lacking special grace, would preclude any possibility of his repentance or faith anyway. God need do exactly nothing, and He would thereby guarantee that man would never repent or believe.

The fact that God is specifically said to actively "harden" certain peoples' hearts, to "blind their eyes" and to conceal His mysteries "lest they should be converted," bears eloquent testimony that the Calvinist view is wrong, and that God sees the sinner as one who, even in a state of being "dead" (like the prodigal son—Luke 15:24), has the potential of repenting and believing on his own, unless God takes special steps to render this impossible in certain cases (e.g., Pharaoh, the Jews of Jesus' day).