Unchain the angels

14 saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” 15 So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, were released to kill a third of mankind (Rev 9:14-15).

Premillennialism and millennialism are susceptible to opposing weaknesses. Premils try to find real-world analogues to prophetic symbolism. But by sticking their neck out, they risk repeated decapitation. What they take to be the extratextual referent may be time-conditioned by when and where they happen to be living. Premil identifications are often premature. 

Conversely, amil interpretations tend to be unfalsifiable in a way that many premil interpretations are not. But the price they pay is for amil interpretations to dissipate into arbitrary allegories with vague analogues.

Interpreting Revelation is a balancing act. Take 16:1ff. This evokes the picture of a temple in the sky. Angels come out into the courtyard to empty the contents of their vials over the side. Over the edge they go, raining down on the earth below.

No premil scholar takes that literally. Yet that doesn't absolve us of asking what it was meant to correspond to. 

Take Rev 9:14-15. Detailed amil commentaries by Beale and Prigent make interesting observations about OT literary allusions as well as historical associations which would resonant with a 1C audience. But they don't get around to saying what they think this really describes.

On the other hand, Johnson's commentary exposes tensions in the premil position:

John here makes use of the ancient geographical terms to depict the fearful character of God's approaching judgment on a rebellious world. While the language is drawn from historical-political events in the OT, it describes realities that far transcend a local geographical event REBC 13:674. 

This is ironic inasmuch as premils, especially dispensationalists, typically think prophecies with a Middle Eastern setting will, in fact be fulfilled in the Mideast. What presumably causes Johnson to depart from that principle is the scale of the catastrophe. If the Euphrates overflowed its banks, that would hardly wipe out one third of the human population. 

So what does this refer to? Does it refer to an actual natural disaster? Certainly, in Scripture, some natural disasters are divine judgments. So we can't rule that out.

Or is it metaphorical? But if so, what kind of real-world event does it symbolize? 

It maybe that we have to take a wait-and-see approach. It is, however, interesting to compare this passage with modern developments:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/381738/print

Damming the Tigris and Euphrates, which was a flood control measure, creates the potential for even more catastrophic flooding if the dam fails. In a way, modern technology has made the ancient description more realistic.   

I'm not suggesting this impeding disaster represents the imminent fulfillment of Revelation. It does, however, shed an interesting light on how outstanding Bible prophecies, couched in ancient language, might be fulfilled in the future. If we translate the language into modern counterparts, this is the sort of thing it could refer to. 

Evil love

I'm going to comment on an argument that Matthew Vines used in his debate with Michael Brown. Indeed, this is part of his post-debate argument. 

The argument is that St. Paul isn't categorically condemning homosexuality. Paul is only condemning abusive homosexual relationships. And that's because Paul was unaware of "loving, committed" homosexual relationships. Indeed, it wouldn't even be possible for Paul to know that since people in his own time lacked our scientific understanding of homosexuality. 

There are several major problems with this argument:

1) As Robert Gagnon has documented, there are some favorable treatments of homosexual relationships in Greco-Roman literature: §3:

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf

Therefore, the notion of "loving, committed" homosexual relationships was not unknown to people in Paul's own time. 

2) In addition, the question of whether Paul "knew of any loving, committed homosexual relationships" is a trick question. For that way of framing the issue can mean two different things:

i) Yes, there were "loving committed" homosexual relationships back then, but Paul didn't know about them.

ii) Paul didn't know about them because there's nothing to be known.

This is where the argument from silence is deceptive without further qualification. Take the following comparison:

Why doesn't the Bible mention griffins? Is that because Bible writers were ignorant of griffins? Or because griffins don't exist? 

The reason Scripture doesn't mention griffins is not because there are griffins, but Bible writers were unaware of their existence, but because there are no griffins.

Likewise, to say Paul didn't know about "loving, committed" homosexual relationships is a slanted statement because it begs the question. That way of casting the question implies the reality of the very thing in dispute.

iii) But here's another point. Suppose there are, in fact, loving, committed homosexual relationships which Paul didn't know about. Does it follow that Paul's position on homosexuality is not a categorical condemnation? Let's take a comparison:

The Bible condemns parental incest. Suppose you said, Bible writers were unaware of loving committed incestuous relationships between some mothers and their teenage sons. Therefore, Biblical condemnations of parental incest only apply to bad examples of parental incest. The wrong kind of parental incest. The Bible doesn't condemn parental incest across the board. 

Now, for all I know, there may in fact be cases in which some mothers and teenage sons are deeply committed to each other in a loving sexual relationship. But that wouldn't make it right. That would be morally twisted. That would be a psychopathological relationship. There's such a thing as evil love. Indeed, there are various examples of evil love. 

A mother shouldn't feel that way about her teenage son–much less act on her feelings. And a boy who feels that way about his mother is radically socially maladjusted. Something went drastically wrong in his moral and psychosexual development. 

Balaam's vision

There are three prima facie cases of talking animals in Scripture. 

1. There's the case of the "snake" in Gen 3. But that's quite ambiguous. The Hebrew phrase has three different meanings: "the snake," "the diviner," and "the shining one."

I think the name of the Tempter in Gen 3 is probably a pun or double entendre that trades on associations with occultic forbidden knowledge, as well as ophiomancy and ophiolatry. I think the Tempter is actually an angelophany. A fallen angel. I've discussed this identification in more detail elsewhere.

2. A second example is the talking eagle in Revelation:

Then I looked, and I heard an eagle crying with a loud voice as it flew directly overhead, “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, at the blasts of the other trumpets that the three angels are about to blow!” (Rev 8:13).

Now, someone might object that this isn't a real eagle. Rather, this is something that John sees and hears in his vision. A simulated talking eagle. Even in ordinary dreams, we can see and hear things that are naturally impossible.

And I agree with that. But that, in turn, raise questions about the third example:

3. If the talking eagle in Rev 8:13 wasn't a real eagle, but a vision of a talking eagle, what about Balaam's talking donkey? 

In Num 22-24, Balaam is clearly a seer. 22:8-13 and 22:19-20 describe nocturnal visions or revelatory dreams. Among other things, Balaam may well have been an oneiromantist. In addition, 24:3-4 describe him as a seer and visionary. 

There's a potential distinction between dream visions and waking visions. Moreover, the description in 24:3-4 (par. 24:15-16) is idiomatic and formulaic. There's the distinction between eyes "covered" (closed) and eyes "uncovered" (opened). Perhaps that's equivalent to falling into a trance and coming out of a trace. Or perhaps that differentiates revelatory dreams and/or nocturnal visions from waking visions. 

Indeed, in this context, "falling" denotes drifting into a revelatory dream state or hypnotic trance. Cf. B. Levine, Numbers 21-36, p194. 

Notice the same stereotypical language in 22:31: 

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. 

This takes place after the talking donkey incident. 

Given the fact that Balaam was a seer, combined with the use of visionary formulas 22:31 & 24:3-4, this may be a narrative clue to the reader that Balaam was in a trace when he saw and heard his donkey speak. In other words, it was a vision. A simulated talking donkey, like the simulated talking eagle in Rev 8:13. 

Num 22:31 may mark the point at this Balaam emerges from his trance. Or perhaps the entire episode is a vision, and this is a recognition scene within the vision. In Scripture, angels sometimes appear to people in visions. Dreams and visions have shifting scenes. 

In this analysis is correct, then Scripture doesn't record any examples of actual talking animals. Even if it did, that would be miraculous. But I'm exploring an alternative interpretation. 

Hobby Lobby

A detailed legal analysis:

http://christianthought.hbu.edu/2014/06/30/on-hhs-vs-hobby-lobby/

The motivation of Frame

"The motivation of Frame" by Paul Helm.

Kathleen Sebelius v. Lemonade Stand

Reuters

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court sided with plaintiffs Tina and Tabitha Brown (ages 6 and 8). The DOJ, acting on behalf of HHS, had filed suit against Tina And Tabitha Brown, proprietors of a lemonade stand, for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act. 

In a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader said "The exemption sought by Tina and Tabitha's lemonade stand operation would deny legions of little girls who don't hold their employers' beliefs access to Viagra and vasectomies."

Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America said: "Allowing lemonade stand bosses this much control over the health-care decisions of their employees is a slippery slope with no end. Every American could potentially be affected by this far-reaching and shocking decision that allows big sisters to reach beyond the lemonade stand and into their kid sister's bedrooms. The majority claims that its ruling is limited, but that logic doesn't hold up. Today it's birth control; tomorrow it could be executives denying asthmatic employees the right to carry inhalers."

Presumptive presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said: “It’s the first time that our court has said that a lemonade stand has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means little girls selling lemonade can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying lemonade stand checkout operators the right to contraceptives as part of a health care plan is exactly that."

Rev 22:19

I recently ran a question by a NT scholar. Here's my question, followed by his answer: 

Wesleyan Arminians (e.g. Witherington) cite this verse as a prooftext to demonstrate that a Christian can lose his salvation. How do you explain it consistent with the perseverance of the saints? 

I think the main problem is in taking "his share" as virtually a technical, precisionistic term, as if one of the main purposes of the verse were to teach that one can lose one salvation, and that this is being articulated by equating salvation with having a share in the tree of life and the holy city. In fact, the language is similar to Heb 6: as part of the community of faith, one is counted as being heir, and one would have had a share in the tree of life in an absolute sense or decretal sense if one had been one of the elect. But Rev 22:19 is focusing on the working out of the dynamics of grace in time in the community (similar in this respect to Heb 6). An individual is counted as sharing in the heritage of the church while he is in the church. He has "his share" in the inheritance that God promises to all in the community. "His share" describes what belongs to human appearances; and it matters to God as well, because someone in the church has greater obligations, Heb 10:29; 2 Pet 2:21. 

I haven't read Witherington's discussion of this verse, but surely he does not favor the Vulgate reading, "book of life" (instead of "tree of life"). If that were the reading, it would make the text quite a bit harder for a Calvinist. Witherington surely also knows about Rev. 17:8, which is heavily against him on that score. I think it is fair to distinguish the contexts of 17:8 and 22:19 in certain ways. 17:8 comes in the context of other discussions of heavenly books, and that is often used with a decretal meaning. It's about a decree in place from the foundation of the world. 22:19, on the other hand, is about participation in a historical process, and the covenantal penalties (e.g., Kline, By Oath Consigned) for violating the terms of the covenant. Arminians typically don't appreciate the complexities that a covenantal approach can include.

Justice Ginsburg's transphobia

I'm going to comment on Ginsburg's dissent:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

• "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

i) Notice her blatantly sexist objection. Why not object that the exemption would deny legions of men (as well as women) access?

ii) Women still have access to contraceptives. Has Ginsburg never been inside a drug store? Not to mention online pharmacies. 

iii) Actually, I don't think an exception should be made for Hobby Lobby since I don't think businesses should be required to provide health insurance in the first place.

• "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

That's monumentally ignorant. For instance, Christian charities do not exist to foster the interests of Christians. Christian charities routinely minister to non-Christians. That's part of the church's outreach to the lost. 

• "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

If it's about a woman's autonomous choice, shouldn't she buy her own contraceptives? 

Incidentally, notice Ginsburg's transphobic language. But I thought gender was a social construct. 

• "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

If IUDs are that expensive, then clearly someone is picking up the tab. So isn't this a shell-game? Who's paying?  

• "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

i) At most, this ruling partially restores the status quo ante prior to HHS implementing Obamacare. Were these worst-case scenarios happening before Obamacare?

ii) If you disagree with a Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish employer's scruples, don't work for him. 

iii) Anyone who works for the "church" of Scientology deserves whatever they get. 

• "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

In that event, HHS has no business approving or disapproving religious claims in the first place. 

Prevenient grace

Brian Abasciano is president of SEA. He's a well-trained NT scholar. So it's instructive to see his positive case for prevenient grace:

As we have noted, because human beings are fallen and sinful, they are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including believe the gospel of Christ (see the description of Total Depravity above). Therefore, desiring the salvation of all and having provided atonement for all people (see “Atonement for All” above), God continues to take the initiative for the purpose of bringing all people to salvation by calling all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30; cf. Matt 28:18-20), and by enabling those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith. Unaided by grace, man cannot even choose to please God or to believe the promise of salvation held out in the gospel. As Jesus said in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” But thanks be to God, Jesus also promised, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). Thus, the Father and the Son draw all people to Jesus, enabling them to come to Jesus in faith.  

Continuing Jesus’ mission to save the world, the Holy Spirit has come to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). Even though unbelievers “are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph 4:18), the Lord opens people’s hearts to respond positively to the gospel message (Acts 16:14). 

All of this is what is known in traditional theological language as God’s prevenient grace. The term “prevenient” simply means “preceding.” Thus, “prevenient grace” refers to God’s grace that precedes salvation, including that part of salvation known as regeneration, which is the beginning of eternal spiritual life granted to all who trust in Christ (John 1:12-13). Prevenient grace is also sometimes called enabling grace or pre-regenerating grace. This is God’s unmerited favor toward totally depraved people, who are unworthy of God’s blessing and unable to seek God or trust in him in and of themselves. Accordingly, Acts 18:27 indicates that we believe through grace, placing grace preveniently (i.e. logically prior) to faith as the means by which we believe. It is the grace that, among other things, frees our wills to believe in Christ and his gospel. As Titus 2:11 says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.” 

http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/

i) We might starting by asking what motivates the doctrine of prevenient grace. The answer, I believe, is that Arminians wish to avoid Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. They wish to stake out a mediating position between Calvinism and Pelagianism. So they assert the priority and necessity of divine grace in relation to faith. God, not man, must take the initiative. 

ii) What's noteworthy about Abasciano's documentation is that not one of his prooftexts suffices to prove his distinctive claim. It's striking that he isn't even aware of the palpable disconnect. 

On the face of it, none of his prooftexts selects for prevenient grace rather than irresistible grace. Yet that contrast is crucial to his position. 

Notice what I'm not saying. In this post I'm not attempting to show that his prooftexts really teach irresistible grace. Rather, I'm commenting on what they don't show. 

None of his prooftexts indicates that the grace in question merely enables the unregenerate to believe. None of his prooftexts indicates that the grace in question frees the will to either believe or disbelieve the Gospel. They don't say or imply that the recipient of this grace is at liberty to respond positively or negatively. 

Even if his prooftexts were consistent with resistible grace, they seem to be equally consistent with irresistible grace. Likewise, none of his prooftexts distinguishes pre-regenerating grace from regenerating grace. 

For some odd reason, Absciano acts as if his prooftexts obviously establish his claim, even though they evidently fall short of what he claims for them. Yet, presumably, these are his best prooftexts for prevenient grace. 

iii) It's also strange to see him quote Tit 2:11 in this context. Given the Arminian interpretation of "all," why isn't this a prooftext for universal salvation rather than prevenient grace? Admittedly, there's more than one way to render the Greek syntax, but given the translation he quoted, how does he avoid universalism? (And if he takes issue with the translation, why quote that version?)

Likewise, given the Arminian interpretation of "all," why doesn't Jn 12:32 teach universal salvation? If I draw water, does the water refuse me? 

iv) Finally, are contemporary Arminians still committed to the historic fall of Adam? Don't many modern Arminians subscribe to human evolution? If so, how do they finesse original sin, which is a presupposition of prevenient grace? 

The dystopian utopia

Have you ever noticed how, the more they get their way, the angrier liberals become? Liberals have made tremendous strides under Obama. You'd think they'd be happier than ever. Yet the more they succeed, the angrier they get. 

Liberals are utopians. And this leads to permanent dissatisfaction. Increasing rage. The world is never good enough. They always see problems. As soon as they think they solved one problem, they see another problem. No matter how much they improve they world, there's still so much wrong with the world. Not enough hours in the day to fix the world. 

A university is a microcosm of the liberal utopia. They force their ideology on faculty and students alike. Yet the ideological purity of the regime is never pure enough. There's a need for constant indoctrination, surveillance, periodic purges. It's hard to be a happy liberal, even in your own fiefdom, where you make the rules and police compliance. Having disinfected the campus of conservatives, liberals turn on each other. 

"Free" contraceptives

I'm no expert on health insurance, but I find the mindset of liberals on this issue peculiar.

i) First of all, liberals operate with the shortsighted notion that if their employer "gives" them something, like "free" contraceptives, they don't have to pay for it. Really?

If it costs a business something to provide contraceptives to employees, then that is coming out of someone's pocket, is it not? On the face of it, there are only two candidates: either the business is charging customers more to defray the cost, or else the company is paying the employee less. Or both. 

So what's the advantage of making less, of having a smaller paycheck, so that someone else can use your money to buy you contraceptives? 

Also, if all businesses above a certain size are legally required to provide contraceptives, and if the company must raise prices on goods or services to do that, then consumers in general are subsidizing contraceptives. And employees are consumers. So aren't you paying for it one way or the other? Either it comes out of your paycheck or it comes out of the hidden surcharge for whatever you buy. 

Put another way, if businesses weren't require by law to provide contraceptives, they could afford to pay their employees more. Likewise, if they weren't required by law to provide contraceptives, they could afford to charge their customers less.

So isn't it a tradeoff? Yes, you have to buy your own contraceptives, but your take-home pay is higher. 

ii) Another problem is that, to my knowledge, companies are often required to provide a preset package of healthcare benefits, whether or not you need all or most of the benefits. In effect, you're paying for a lot of benefits that don't benefit you. Paying for lots of stuff you don't need and don't use. In effect, the company is garnishing your wages.

I suppose the theory behind this is to spread the cost around. Make healthcare more expensive for more people so that it's less expensive for a few. Fewer people using more benefits over against more people using fewer benefits. 

Again, though, that's a tradeoff. You're making healthcare more expensive for many or most people to make it less expensive for fewer people. What if a company is required to offer 20 different kinds of contraception, even though you only use one kind. Or what about postmenopausal female employees who don't need contraception?

We can debate the pros and cons of this arrangement, but I'm struck by how nearsighted many liberals seem to be. Let's consider some alternative arrangements:

a) There's a distinction between a business offering insurance and a business providing insurance. 

Suppose a company was able to give employees an opt-out option. The company would provide insurance coverage if you want it, but you are given a choice. If you receive coverage, you will receive less pay–if you decline coverage, you will receive more pay. If you opt out of company-sponsored insurance, less money will be withheld from your paycheck. What you do with your extra income is up to you. You could get private insurance. Or, if you're young and healthy, you might prefer to be uninsured–and pay out of pocket on a fee-for-service basis if you need to see a doctor.

Is there some obvious reason why that would be an outrageous arrangement?

b) Likewise, what about customized insurance packages where you pay for as much or little coverage as you want or need? Why not give policyholders a checklist of items to choose from? They are free to select what they want or need, rather than paying for the entire menu. Is there some reason why that would be an outrageous arrangement? Is having the freedom to spend your own earnings on what you want such an evil notion?

Keep A Record Of God's Providence In Your Life

One line of apologetics that doesn't receive much attention is God's work in our own lives. Even if we can't provide other people with much or any evidence for something like an answered prayer we've experienced, the experience can have apologetic value for us individually and for people who know us enough to trust us. I've mentioned apologetics, but God's work in our lives is significant in non-apologetic contexts as well.

Years ago, I heard Gary Habermas make some comments to the effect that he hadn't noticed how many of his prayer requests were granted by God until he started keeping a record of answered prayers. At his advice, I began keeping a record of God's providence in my life. I don't limit it to answered prayer. I include other types of apparent interventions of God in my life as well. And I have been surprised by how many of them there are and their significance. If you think you can remember everything without keeping a record, I suggest keeping a record for a while. See what happens. Unless you have an unusually good memory, I suspect you'd forget much of what happens if you haven't recorded it. You don't have to record everything, and you'd probably forget some things even if you intended to record them all. But try to regularly record some examples. I suggest writing down dates and including other relevant contextual information where it's appropriate.

Tinfoil hat eschatology

Now, just as an aside, I am mystified Christians have tied all sorts of evil plotting to the United Nations.  Among conspiracy theorists, the U.N. is primarily identified with the final, one-world government of the end times.  But the reality is quite the opposite. The U.N. has only demonstrated a general incompetence and impotence in unifying any nation under a so-called “one world government.”  In all honesty, they are only good for eliminating hook worms in 3rd world countries, not organizing a “one world government” with the Antichrist as its head. 

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/tin-foil-hat-theology-3/

I agree with Fred, but here's the catch. Doesn't dispensationalism foster the conspiratorial outlook he deplores? Isn't the expectation of one-world gov't headed by the Antichrist something dispensationalism cultivates? Why wouldn't dispensationalists been on the look-out for signs of that impending development? 

Maybe he thinks the UN is a bad candidate, but it's the same mindset that fingers other candidates, viz. the Vatican, the Trilateral Commission, Jewish bankers, Jewish media moguls, Skull and Bones, Henry Kissinger, &c.

Incidentally, the UN is a vehicle for advancing a radical ideological agenda through international law which trumps national sovereignty and the democratic process. Consider, for instance, how the Convention on the Rights of the Child overrules parental rights. CPS on steroids. Or take universal jurisdiction. The UN is not as ineffectual as it appears to be. 

Arminian prooftexts

The argument for Arminianism used to be a whole lot simpler for Arminians. It was a two-sided debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Now, however, Arminians have far more competition. 

They must vie with universalists for the "all/world" passages. 

Likewise, they must vie with open theists for the anthropopathic passages (e.g. Ezk 18:23,33; Mt 23:37; Lk 19:41).

To further complicate matters, many or most contemporary Arminians espouse eternal security. When "4-point Arminians" debate Wesleyan Arminians, they default to Reformed exegesis. 

Finally, even though Arminians champion unlimited atonement, that's masks a fatal equivocation inasmuch as Arminians can't agree what the atonement is or does. Many contemporary Arminians espouse penal substitution, but many traditional Arminians reject penal substitution. Moreover, you have prominent contemporary Arminians who reject penal substitution (e.g. Joel Green, Randal Rauser). Even if you think Christ died for everyone, what does that mean? 

In this post I'm going to quote the major Arminian prooftexts. A partial exception is that I won't quote their prooftexts against the perseverance of the saints, both because I've discussed that at length elsewhere, and because Arminians are divided on the subject.

After quoting their prooftexts, I will quote from a variety of scholars. These include Calvinists, Arminians, universalists, open theists, and non-Calvinists. By non-Calvinists I mean scholars who, to my knowledge, aren't Calvinists, but beyond that I don't know how to classify them. They don't self-identify their overall position, if they have one. 

Obviously, I won't agree with everyone I quote. My point is to illustrate the complexity of the Arminian burden of proof. Nowadays, Arminians are having to fight on several fronts at once, both in terms of intramural debates as well as non-Arminian opponents. It's not a straightforward appeal to their prooftexts.  

In some cases, after quoting a scholar or scholars, I'll include an editorial aside.

1) Isa 5:1-7

What more was there to do for my vineyard,    that I have not done in it?When I looked for it to yield grapes,    why did it yield wild grapes? (v4).

God is sometimes surprised by the way things unfold.  For example, he expected Israel to be fruitful, but they were not (Isa 5:1-5).  

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-open-theist-greg-boyd-response 

At other times he tells us that he is surprised at how things turned out because he expected a different outcome (Isa. 5:3–7; Jer. 3:67; 19–20).  

http://reknew.org/2007/12/response-to-critics/

Both traditional Arminians and open theists claim this passage. But as Boyd points out, this isn't just an Arminian/Calvinist dispute, but a classical theist/open theist dispute. 

2) Ezk 18:23

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

An even more problematic question that burdens those who view the future as eternally settled and thus known by God as such is why God would give certain agents the free will to damn themselves, especially when he tells us he desires all to be saved and is grieved by very person who is lost (e.g. Ezk 18:23; 33:11; 1 Tim 2:4; 4:10; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Jn 2:2). 

G. Boyd, "God Limits His Control," Four Views on Divine Providence, 202. 

3) Mt 23:37

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

The heart of God, clearly, is a heart which grants freedom, and which sometimes suffers profoundly because of it. In the case of Matthew 23:37, what the Son of God longed for the Son of God didn’t get! The fact that most theologians in the classical tradition found it necessary to attribute this lament not to the heart of the eternal God but only to the humanity of Christ simply testifies to the strength with which a non-biblical philosophical concept of God (viz. God’s impassability) has held biblical exegesis hostage.  

http://reknew.org/2008/01/what-is-the-biblical-basis-of-free-will/

Boyd has a more consistent hermeneutical approach than traditional Arminians. He rejects the Reformed appeal to anthropomorphic or anthropopathetic depictions. Traditional Arminians must straddle the fence without falling over on the Calvinist side or the open theist side. It's quite a balancing act. In addition:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/07/o-jerusalem-jerusalem.html

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/09/gathering-children-of-jerusalem.html

4) Jn 1:12-13

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Some interpreters forcefully reject any idea that the relative clause with which v13 begins ("who were born…") is a comment on the preceding clause ("who believed in his name") since then faith would proceed from regeneration whereas, according to their view, a person must opt for rebirth as a possibility opened up for him or her in the call that comes from the Revealer. In the choice that faith makes a person can be "born again" and so change and come to his or her real being. However, against this it has to be asserted that the concluding statement in v13 traces the entire gift of being a child of God, including the manner in which it is effected, to its deepest ground: "procreation" by God. The idea that faith as a human choice should precede that birth and therefore that in some sense a person should have this rebirth of God at his or her disposal not only seems absurd but is also at variance with statements like this in 1 Jn 5:1," H. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, 47.

No evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God. Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (1 John 3:9), and loving God (1 John 4:7). It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ. 

http://www.9marks.org/journal/does-regeneration-necessarily-precede-conversion

5) Jn 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Some argue that the term "world" here simply has negative connotations–the created human world. But the characteristic use of "the world" (ho cosmos) elsewhere in the narrative is with negative overtones–the world in its alienation from and hostility to its Creator's purposes. It  makes better sense in the soteriological context to see the latter notion as in view. God loves that which has become hostile to God. The force is not, then, that the world is so vast that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it, but rather that the world has become so alienated from God that it takes an exceedingly great love to love it at all. A. Lincoln, The Gospel According to St. John, 154.

6) Acts 7:51

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

More puzzling still is why God sincerely tries to get individuals and groups to turn from their wicked ways and surrender to him if he is eternally certain his efforts will fail (e.g. Acts 7:51…). 

G. Boyd, "God Limits His Control," Four Views on Divine Providence, 202.  

7) Rom 5:18; 11:32

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

So when he uses "all men" here [5:18], he does not mean every human being but rather is saying "that Christ effects those who are his just as certainly as Adam does those who are his." While all are in Adam, it is clear in Romans that only those who are believers are in Christ.  

While some have taken this [11:32] to mean universal salvation, this is impossible in light of the constant emphasis on final punishment at the eschaton (1:18; 2:5-11; 6:21,23; 9:22,29). Therefore, it is likely that the "all" here is corporate, meaning that God's mercy will be shown to Jew and Gentile alike. G. Osborne, Romans, 144, 312.

Notice how Arminian Grant Osborne defaults to Calvinist exegesis to deflect universalism.

Observe first the parallel structure of [Rom] 5:18…The whole point of such a parallel structure, so typical of Paul, is to identify a single group of individuals and to make two parallel statements about that single group of individuals, and the effect therefore is to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity. The very ones who came under condemnation, as a result of the first Adam's act of disobedience, will eventually be brought to justification and life, as a result of the second Adam's act of obedience…Again, I do not know how Paul could have expressed himself any more clearly than that. 

Paul's teaching here is so explicit, and so clear, that even the opponents of absolute universalism have sometimes conceded, as Neil Punt does, that 'Romans 5:18 and its immediate context place no limitations on the universalistic thrust of the second "all men".'  

…Paul's explicit teaching that God, being merciful to all (Rom 11:32), shows no partiality to anyone. So how, then, do the Arminians explain the supposedly final division within the human race? Presumably by an appael to human freedom: We ultimately determine our own destiny in heaven or hell. But if that is true, then the redeemed are also in a position to boast, it seems, along the following lines: 'At the very least, some of my own free choices–my decision to accept Christ, for example–were a lot better than those of the lost, and these choices also explain, at least partially, why my character ended up to be a lot more virtuous than theirs.' Thomas Talbot, Universal Salvation: The Current Debate, 19-20, 260.

Notice how a universalist easily co-opts Arminian prooftexts, hermeneutics, and applies them more consistently. 

8) Rom 8:29

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

proginosko (2) "choose beforehand" tina [someone] Ro 8:29. ton laon autou 11:2. BDAG 866b.

While agreeing that God knows the future, including who will believe, the corporate election perspective would tend to understand the references to foreknowledge in Rom 8:29 and 1 Pet 1:1-2 as referring to a relational prior knowing that amounts to previously acknowledging or recognizing or embracing or choosing people as belonging to God (i.e., in covenant relationship/partnership). The Bible sometimes mentions this type of knowledge, such as when Jesus speaks of those who never truly submit to his lordship: “And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt 7:23; cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Hos 13:4-5; Amos 3:2; 1 Cor 8:3). On this view, to be chosen according to foreknowledge would mean to be chosen because of the prior election of Christ and the corporate people of God in him. 

http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/

Notice Arminian Abasciano's oblique concession that the traditional Reformed understanding of proginosko was right all along. 

9) Rom 14:15

For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

Paul uses the powerful verb apollumi ("annihilate, destroy, ruin") in the present imperative, which implies an ongoing process rather than once and for all "being lost before God."…Horst Baltz is therefore closer to the nuance required by this context in suggesting the translation of lupeo in this verse as "injured/deeply troubled," which implies an ongoing state.
References in the commentaries to "eschatological ruin" or "spiritual ruin" not only overlook the tense of the verb but also provide scant explanation of the effects of conscience violation. R. Jewett, Romans, 861-861.

10) 2 Cor 5:14-15,19

14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

This probably means that one has died as the representative of all his people, and therefore all of them are deemed to have dead in the person of their representative. F. F. Bruce, I & II Corinthians, 207.

Most commentators admit that the most sensible reading is to take pantes in all three occurrences as being coextensive…In many ways the meaning of the verse turns on this one word [ara]: Christ died for all, therefore all died. The point that Paul wishes to make, inter alia, is that Christ's death effects the spiritual death of others, such that (kai) he died for all so that (hina) those who live (having died in Christ) should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again (v55). In other words, Christ's death is both effective and purposive and reveals there is an implicit union between Christ and those for whom he died, something that Paul makes more explicit in Rom 6:1-11. J. Gibson, "For Whom Did Christ Die?," From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, 303.

11) 1 Tim 2:4-6; 4:10; Tit 2:11

4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. 

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.

The purpose of the reference to "all people," which continues the them of universality in this passage, is sometimes misconstrued. The reference is made mainly with the Pauline mission to the Gentiles in mind (v7). But the reason behind Paul's justification of this universal mission is almost certainly the false teaching, with its Torah-centered approach to life that included either an exclusivist bent or a downplaying of the Gentile mission…Paul's focus is on building a people of God who incorporate all people regardless of ethnic, social, or economic backgrounds… P. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 177-178.

It may be that they [false teachers] were consumed with genealogies because they restricted salvation along certain ethnic lines (1 Tim 1:4)…When Paul says that God desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ was the random for all (1 Tim 2:6), he may be responding to some who excluded Gentiles from salvation for genealogical reasons…Paul counters Jewish teachers (Tit 10:10,14-15; 3:9) who construct genealogies to exclude some from salvation. T. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ, 184-85.

These problems disappear if we accept the other possible translation, "to be precise, namely, I mean." "All" is thus limited here to believers," I. H. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 556. 

12) Heb 2:9

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

When we place this description of Abraham's offspring with the emphasis on the children God gave to Jesus and the use of the word "brothers," we have significant evidence that Jesus's death "for everyone" (v9) is particular rather than general. All of this fits with v17, which speaks of Jesus's High Priestly ministry "to make propitiation for the sins of the people"… Given the focus on God's elect and Jesus's family in the context, it seems fair to conclude that here the emphasis is on the actual satisfaction accomplished in Jesus's death for those who would be part of his family. T. Schreiner, "Problematic Texts" for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles," From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, 396. Cf. P. T. O'Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, 101-124.

13) Heb 10:29

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The apostate treats as profane that which is in fact not only holy in itself, but the source of cleansing holiness for the believer. The language is cultic, not ethical. P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 540. 

In other words, "sanctification," in the usage of Hebrews, refers not to inner renewal by the Holy Spirit, but a kind of ceremonial consecration, like ritual purity or cultic holiness. 

14) 2 Pet 2:1

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

The most immediate [image] is borrowed from the Roman slave trade, where a ransom might serve as the price of emancipation, after which the one freed belong to the one who paid the price.  

First Peter 1:18-19 affirms that believers were "ransomed" from the futile ways of their ancestors "with the precious blood of Christ" (cf. Eph 1:7; 2 Pet 2:1). In these and related passages, NT writers are drawing on a wealth of what would have been shared experience in the larger Greco-Roman world. Those familiar with the history of Israel, of course, would have heard reverberations of the story of the exodus in the background of such references (e.g., Ex 6:6; cf. Is 51:11). Others, however, might have been led to conjer up images of the "redemption" of slaves or of prisoners of war. 

This raises the question, If Jesus' death "purchased" believers, to whom was the purchase price paid? The devil? The demonic world? It is here, at this juncture, that we encounter the limits of the metaphor of redemption. J. Green & M. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross (IVP 2000), 41-42, 102.

A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism…Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition…[Arminians] also feel that God the Father would not be forgiving us at all if his justice was satisfied by the real thing that justice needs: punishment. J. Grider, "Arminianism," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 80.

Joel Green is a premier Arminian NT scholar. The monograph he coauthored with Baker is a frontal assault on penal substitution. But that obscures the Arminian appeal to 2 Pet 2:1 as a prooftext for unlimited atonement. If it's not redemptive in the penal substitutionary sense, then in what sense, if at all, did Christ atone for the sins of the false teachers? Grider's clarification raises the same issue. 

I'd add that even if you think the Bible teaches penal substitution (which it undoubtedly does), you can't superimpose that on every generically redemptive passage. 2 Pet 2:1 lacks vicarious or sacrificial language. It doesn't say the false teachers were redeemed by the blood of Christ. It doesn't say Christ died in their stead. 

15) 2 Pet 3:9

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

God's patience with his own people, delaying the final judgment to give them the opportunity of repentance, provides at least a partial answer to the problem of eschatological delay. 

The author remains close to his Jewish source, for in Jewish thought it was usually for the sake of the repentance of his own people that God delayed judgment. R. Bauckham,  Jude, 2 Peter, 312-13.

In other words, it's not referring to humans in general, but God's people (Jews, Christians) in particular. 

Why would God strive to the point of frustration to get people to do what he was certain they would never do before they were even born; namely, believe in him? Doesn't God's sincere effort to get all people to believe in him imply that it is not a foregone conclusion to God that certain people would not believe in him when he created them? Indeed, doesn't the fact that the Lord delays his return imply that neither the date of his return nor the identities of who will and will not believe are settled in God's mind ahead of time?…If this isn't what 2 Pet 3:9 explicitly teaches, what does it teach? 

If it is difficult for the classical view to explain why God strives with people he is certain will not be saved, it is evil more difficult to explain why God would create these people in the first place…why a God who loves all epode and who wants no one to perish would give freedom to people he is certain are going to use it to damn themselves to hell. G. Boyd, "The Open-Theist View," Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 29.

16) 1 Jn 2:2; 4:14

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

If here it is a reference to the whole planet, consideration of the historical context in which John wrote makes a more likely interpretation to be the universal scope of Christ's sacrifice in the sense that no one's race, nationality, or any other trait will keep that person from receiving the full benefit of Christ's sacrifice if and when they come to faith.  

In the ancient world, the gods were parochial and had geographically limited jurisdictions. In the mountains, one sought the favor of the mountain gods; on the sea, of the sea gods. Ancient warfare was waged in the belief that the gods of the opposing nations were fighting as well, and the outcome would be determined by whose god was strongest. Against that kind of pagan mentality, John asserts the efficacy of Jesus Christ's sacrifice is valid everywhere, for people everywhere, that is "the whole world."  

But "world" in John's writings is often used to refer not to the planet or all its inhabitants, but to the system of fallen human culture, with its values, morals, and ethics as a whole. Lieu explains it as that which  is totally opposed to God and all the belongs to him. It is almost always associated with the side of darkness in the Johannine duality, and people are characterized in John's writings as being either "of God" or "of the world" (Jn 8:23; 15:19; 176,14,16; 18:36; 1 Jn 2:16; 4:5). Those who have been born of God are taken out of that spiritual sphere, though not out of the geographical place or physical population that is concurrent with it (Jn 13:1; 17:15: see "In Depth: The "world" in John's Letters" at 2:16).  

Rather than teaching universalism, John here instead announces the exclusivity of the Christian gospel. Since Christ's atonement is efficacious for the "whole world," there is no other form of atonement available to other peoples, cultures, and religions apart from Jesus Christ. K. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John (Zondervan 2014), 80.

1 John is written to a Christian community…Its  concern, as we have seen, is with the sins of Christian believers after their conversion, emphasizing that "the blood of Jesus…purifies us from all sin" (1 Jn 1:7), that "if anybody sins we have an Advocate with the Father" and that he is a propitiation "for our sins" (1 Jn 2:1-2, my italics). But having introduced an explicit theology of atonement to deal with the specific problem of "our" sins now, after conversion and baptism, the author adds, almost as an afterthought, that of course this is God's way of dealing with sin always and everywhere: "and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world". There is not one "propitiation" for us and another for the rest of the world, but Jesus (kai autos) is the only sacrifice, and the only way of salvation for all. The point is not that Jesus died for everyone indiscriminately so that everyone in the world is in principle forgiven, but that all those  forgiven are forgiven on the basis of Christ's sacrificed and in no other way. J. R. Michaels, "Atonement in John's Gospel and Epistles," C. Hill & F. James, eds. The Glory of the Atonement (IVP 2004), 116-17. 

The Beast from the sea

13 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads.  

11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon (Rev 13:1,11).

Commentators disagree on what the sea beast symbolizes. Some draw connections with ancient mythological chaos monsters. But it's unclear to me how the chaos monster motif would be terribly relevant to John's audience–or a later audience.

The passage has some background in Daniel, although John is adapting his sources. 

One possibility which commentators generally overlook is that it represents naval power. For peoples living in (i.e. islands) and around (i.e. coastal towns and countries) the Mediterranean, shipping was important to trade and commerce, fishing (obviously), but also military dominance. Rome was a naval power. Egypt was a naval power. Phoenicia was a naval power. 

Ships transported armies to invade both coastal and landlocked countries. Navigable rivers open to the sea could be invasion routes for navies. 

So the sea beast might represent battleships. Imaging living on the coast and seeing a navy "rise out of the sea," as it suddenly became visible above the horizon–due to the curvature of the earth. 

In fact, Revelation mentions shipping (8:9; 18:17,19). This would also have some resonance for the coastal churches of Asia Minor (i.e. Ephesus, Smyrna). 

If that identification is correct, then its counterpart (the beast from the earth) would represent the infantry. Imagine armies coming over the hills. 

Between them they represent army and navy. Combined military might, which is used to conquer and coercive. 

Although this identification suits the 1C Roman Empire, it doesn't single out a 1C setting. In principle, it could symbolize tanks and submarines. 

I'm not suggesting this identification exhausts the symbolism. I think the imagery in Revelation is often polyvalent. It doesn't stand for just one thing at one time or place. 

Military might is a means to an end. It can be used to enforce ideology. Persecute the faithful. 

Arminian determinism

Joel Green is in the top-tier of Arminian NT scholars. Ironically, there's a sense in which Green is even more deterministic than Calvinists. As a physicalist, he espouses physical determinism (at least above the subatomic level). He believes our choices are reducible to brain states. What we take to be our conscious choices are usually the effect of subconscious brain states, over which we have no control. By contrast, Calvinism is committed to divine determinism, but not to physical determinism, and most Calvinists are substance dualists. 

(1) I am a Methodist, but regard my tradition's view of freedom as overdrawn. I make this claim based on both biblical and neuroscientific (and neuro-philosophical) considerations.  

(2) I am not a determinist. However, I am convinced by the neuroscientific evidence that most of what we do as humans we do at a pre-conscious level (and thus at a level that does not rise to the level of the exercise of free will). I regard the biblical evidence as congruent with this understanding, and the material I discussed in Body, Soul, and Human Life suggests why this is so. 

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=203

Resisting God

A better translation of Neh 9:30 would be, “Many years you drew them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear.” The text speaks of a resistible divine drawing that seeks to bring people to the Lord in repentance. Stephen also furnished a good example of the resistibility of grace when he said to his fellow Jews, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it” (Acts 7:51-53). Luke 7:30 tells us that “the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves.” And Jesus, who spoke to people for the purpose of saving them (John 5:34), yet found that they refused to come to him to have life (John 5:40). 

http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/

I've already discussed Abasciano's misinterpretation of Lk 7:30 and Acts 7:51 here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-facts-of-salvation.html

Now I'd like to make a broader point. Abasciano overlooks a basic tenet of Calvinism. It might seem discordant with Calvinism to admit that men can ever resist God, but that's ambiguous. For there's a sense in which God can (and does) cause a person to resist him. That's one function of divine hardening:

21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go (Exod 4:41). 

12 But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses (Exod 9:12). 

20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go…27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go (Exod 10:20,27). 

10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land (Exod 11:10). 

37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,40 “He has blinded their eyes    and hardened their heart,lest they see with their eyes,    and understand with their heart, and turn,    and I would heal them.”(Jn 12:37-40).

Resisting God isn't antithetical to divine determinism, for God can determine or predestine a man to resist him. His very resistance to God is, itself, the effect of God's prior action.  

"Resisting God" is ambiguous. It's shorthand. Resist God in what respect? Can a human resist God's will? God's plan? Calvinism says no. 

Can a human resist God's word? God's command or prohibition? Calvinism says yes. 

Not only is it possible for humans to resist God's word, but when they do so, their very resistance is part of God's plan. Their predestined resistance facilitates God's plan. Their resistance is instrumental in the realization of God's design. 

Predestination is irresistible, but resistance (of a certain kind) can be, and sometimes is, the end-result of predestination.

In the TULIP acronym, "irresistible" has specific reference to monergistic regeneration. The unregenerate are passive in regeneration. Unable to cooperate in their regeneration.