God's Sovereign Choice and Man's Natural Condition

[The Archangel]

Umm.. not be argumentive here brother but while you are answering his question, your answer is not to the question he is asking.

I believe he absolutely agrees with your statement regarding 'what' God is doing. However the question he is asking isn't what you are answering.

He asks:

Then he gives a brief explanation in the form of a question but both are still asking the same type of question:

It might be better said - Why the need to blind a man who is born totally blind already?

And then reiterates this yet again with another form of the same question:


So while you did give an answer it was not an answer that addressed his question - why does God need to blind/harden a man who is already in this condition prior to God doing anything at all.

An example from me is this..
God goes up to a completely blind man, places duct tape over his eyes and then asks the blind man read what he has written.

Why the need to blind/harden a person who is already in this state of being.

Allan,

Thank you for the clarification.

"Need" is not, I think, a proper term. God chooses to blind/harden the already blind/hardened to magnify their judgment (to make it more) so that His grace is more glorious to the elect.

So, my answer is still the same: To magnify the judgment against them in order to maximize His glory.

Blessings to you (both)

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Allan, thank you for clarifying that...

Archangel, with regard to Act 13:48, I have another question for you and it does relate even though it may not appear to relate: How do you interpret John 12:32: But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Please explain how you interpret this text and why and then I'll show you how it relates to our discussion on Acts 13:48

The passages don't relate, but I'll play along.

I'll freely admit and readily admit that the "all" passages are a hole in the Calvinist argument. However, it is a hole that is easily filled, even though it is most likely you won't accept the explanation.

In the John passage, Jesus says that He will draw all to Himself. But it must be the case that "all" doesn't mean all without exception. There are many people in many centuries (after the Cross) who have lived and died never having heard of Jesus or the Cross. So, it cannot mean all without exception.

Here's an example. Let's say I complete a crossword puzzle. Out of joy (and amazement!) I tell my wife "I got all the words." Now, does that mean I was able to put all the known words into that crossword puzzle? Or does it mean I got all the words the clues (and therefore the puzzle) were asking for? It is, obviously, the second option.

The word in Greek is very contextually driven and doesn't always mean "all without exception."

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Allan,

Thank you for the clarification.

"Need" is not, I think, a proper term.

So, you admit that God needed to blind Pharaoh in order to keep him from being convinced and believing before the appointed time, but when it comes to the Jews being hardened, there is no need? Explain.

God chooses to blind/harden the already blind/hardened to magnify their judgment (to make it more) so that His grace is more glorious to the elect.

You don't think that the hardening actually accomplished what the bible says it accomplished..."For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." John 12:39-40

It seems like you are arguing that these people didn't NEED to be hardened, so God only did this to magnify his glory. But I see at least 3 major issues with that.

1. The bible tells us why God hardened them. To keep them from seeing, hearing or repenting.

2. The bible tells us what they could have done OTHERWISE.

As Paul tells us CLEARLY: "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

3. How does it bring God more glory to confuse his people by making it appear that he needed to blind men born already totally blind? Hardening Pharaoh brought Him more Glory because it prevented Pharaoh from being convinced too soon so as to make sure more plagues were completed, thus God's Glory was revealed more fully. That makes sense.

Hardening Jews brought God more glory because it prevented them from repenting and believing before they crucified Christ and before the Gentiles were established in the church. Both of which brings God more glory. That makes sense.

But if the Jews didn't NEED to be hardened (as you seem to be arguing here) then what is the point? How does this act bring God more glory? Please explain.

So, my answer is still the same: To magnify the judgment against them in order to maximize His glory.

It's not judgement enough to lock them from birth into a totally depraved nature predestining them to certain condemnation because of a couple ate a forbidden fruit? You are saying he needed to emphasize his judgement further by doing something to them they already had done to them from birth due to the fall? Really?

 

[Allan]

Need" is not, I think, a proper term. God chooses to blind/harden the already blind/hardened to magnify their judgment (to make it more) so that His grace is more glorious to the elect.

So, my answer is still the same: To magnify the judgment against them in order to maximize His glory.

Again, not meaning to interupt here but you are confusing me. If I may have a moment to organize what I 'presume' is your thoughts..

1. Man is completely blind/hardened already and thus not only will they not but in fact can not choose God or do any salvic good. (I'm with you on this point)

2. God chooses to blind/harden man who is 'already' comepletely blind/hardened so as to maginify or increase His judgment against them...
...(here you lost me like a needle in a shag rug)

My first question is, how exactly does God blind an already and completely blind man?

Second, even if a completely blind man can be blinded even more by God's causing it.. Please explain how is it judicially just for a Holy God to increase/magnify His judgment against them for what He/God actively made them to be by blinding/hardening them even more?

Just to be clear.. the above is regarding the increasing/magnifying of His judgement against them specifically for God has done to them- blinding and Hardening of them?

 

[Skandelon]

The passages don't relate, but I'll play along.

I'll freely admit and readily admit that the "all" passages are a hole in the Calvinist argument. However, it is a hole that is easily filled, even though it is most likely you won't accept the explanation.

In the John passage, Jesus says that He will draw all to Himself. But it must be the case that "all" doesn't mean all without exception. There are many people in many centuries (after the Cross) who have lived and died never having heard of Jesus or the Cross. So, it cannot mean all without exception.

Not so. It can mean all without exception if you are talking about the intent of the gospel (the means God has chosen to draw all man). Even most Calvinists affirm the universality of the gospel's call in that it is MEANT for all to hear without exception...thus when Christ is raised up and send the gospel out his intent is for all to hear it and thus all to be drawn without exception.

Now, if the preaching of the gospel by free creatures is the only means God has chosen to use to draw the world to himself (which it may or may not be), then Christ would be expressing his desire for all people to be invited, though disobedience in a sinful and fallen world might prevent that from happening.

Like the illustration of the banquet where the master send servants into the highways and byways to invite anyone who would come, God send us, his servants into all the world to invite whosoever will come..."all without exception." This passage along with verses such as these prove that God does desire for all to hear (be drawn), repent and believe:

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

and

3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

and

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

Now, for those who never hear the gospel, I think there can be a very strong argument made that they will be held accountable to the level of their revelation...but start another thread if you want to discuss that because that is a big rabbit that I'd rather not chase here.

 

[The Archangel]

Again, not meaning to interupt here but you are confusing me. If I may have a moment to organize what I 'presume' is your thoughts..

1. Man is completely blind/hardened already and thus not only will they not but in fact can not choose God or do any salvic good. (I'm with you on this point)

2. God chooses to blind/harden man who is 'already' comepletely blind/hardened so as to maginify or increase His judgment against them...
...(here you lost me like a needle in a shag rug)

My first question is, how exactly does God blind an already and completely blind man?

Second, even if a completely blind man can be blinded even more by God's causing it.. Please explain how is it judicially just for a Holy God to increase/magnify His judgment against them for what He/God actively made them to be by blinding/hardening them even more?

Just to be clear.. the above is regarding the increasing/magnifying of His judgement against them specifically for God has done to them- blinding and Hardening of them?

Not to worry...no interruption.

I think "blind" is not the best word here for this discussion. But, as far as hardening goes, I think it is clear that God gives sinners what they want--sometimes. He turns them over to their sinful desires--He removes His common grace--and allows them to be worse.

How He does this? I don't know. That He does it is evident throughout scripture.

As for the justice of this--Again, it's not as if God was doing this hardening to Mother Theresa. The hardened whom God hardens further want to have hard hearts.

So, perhaps, a young Hitler was not quite the monster the Hitler of the holocaust was. But, because of God's further hardening of an already hardened heart, Hitler became the monster we all know he was. (Not intending to get into a Jewish debate here...I could have used Stalin instead).

Why do I think this? It is clear that, in Romans, Paul talks about God raising up Pharaoh for a specific purpose. It would seem that the Pharaoh of the Exodus existed to be a pinata for God. Before my Calvinist days, I used to argue that Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardened it. But, I was wrong about that then. God tells Moses that He (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart. Now, we know that Pharaoh was not the poster-child for righteousness, but God still hardens his heart to make an example out of him.

In the episode of the Exodus, you have an already unbelieving person (Pharaoh) being hardened by God to increase the judgment (the plagues) so that God's own glory is magnified and proclaimed throughout the world. And in all of that, according to Paul, God is absolutely justified in doing what He did. Pharaoh was created for dishonorable purposes; Moses was created for honorable purposes.

Blessings to you! (It's 3:20 AM where I'm at...I'm going to bed!). When you get the chance, sleep well, my friend.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

OK...one more post before bed.

Not so. It can mean all without exception if you are talking about the intent of the gospel (the means God has chosen to draw all man). Even most Calvinists affirm the universality of the gospel's call in that it is MEANT for all to hear without exception...thus when Christ is raised up and send the gospel out his intent is for all to hear it and thus all to be drawn without exception.

It can mean all without exception, but it doesn't have to. I agree with a universal call. However, even the "all" in your phrase "...his intent is for all to hear" cannot be all without exception. The American Indian living in North America in 800 AD would not have heard. He or she would have never known the name Jesus or the title Christ or even the existence of a place called Jerusalem.

Now, if the preaching of the gospel by free creatures is the only means God has chosen to use to draw the world to himself (which it may or may not be), then Christ would be expressing his desire for all people to be invited, though disobedience in a sinful and fallen world might prevent that from happening.

I agree that we should invite all we can. We should work arduously to invite all.

Let me note something here: "if the preaching of the gospel by free creatures is the only means God has chosen to use to draw the world to himself (which it may or may not be)" Are you kidding me? The heresy alarm is going off. Please clarify.

Like the illustration of the banquet where the master send servants into the highways and byways to invite anyone who would come, God send us, his servants into all the world to invite whosoever will come..."all without exception." This passage along with verses such as these prove that God does desire for all to hear (be drawn), repent and believe:

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

You have several contextual issues here.

2 Peter 3:9--Peter is addressing the beloved (presumably Christians) and God is said to be patient towards them...not willing that any should perish...

Since he is addressing believers, Peter is rightly exhorting his listeners to be constantly and consistently examining their lives and their faith to make sure they are, in fact, saved.

This is not a general statement. The "all" is qualified by the "you [plural]" that Peter is addressing as he encourages them.

1 Timothy 2:4--In the context, Paul has exhorted his listeners to pray for kings, etc. This is astounding considering the fact that many Christians had already faced persecution and death at the hands of many rulers, not the least of which was the Roman Emperor (Nero, likely at this time).

Paul says to pray for the king is good in the sight of God who desires all to be saved. The all obviously is a reference back to the kings/rulers Paul has just exhorted the people to pray for.

So, in essence, Paul is exhorting the people to pray for the salvation of Nero, among the other oppressive kings/rulers.

Again, the "all" is qualified and does not mean "all without exception."

Romans 10:14--I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Paul is exhorting the Romans Christians to do missions. Don't be stupid hyper-Calvinists! Get out there and do the work that God has commanded you to do--make disciples.

Since the elect are unknown to everyone but God, it makes sense to go to everyone calling them to repentance and faith.

Now, for those who never hear the gospel, I think there can be a very strong argument made that they will be held accountable to the level of their revelation...but start another thread if you want to discuss that because that is a big rabbit that I'd rather not chase here.

Agreed. Not a rabbit to chase here. I do think there will be varied judgments and punishments against those who have had more opportunity/less opportunity. For example the American Indian who lived in North America in 800 AD will be judged far less severely than someone who lives today. Again, a subject for another time.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Not to worry...no interruption.

I think "blind" is not the best word here for this discussion. But, as far as hardening goes, I think it is clear that God gives sinners what they want--sometimes. He turns them over to their sinful desires--He removes His common grace--and allows them to be worse.

See, I follow you here
What I don't understand is where you have God having to harden that which by nature can not be spiritually hardened any more than it already is - from birth. If it can not see or hear (spiritually) and has no ability whatsoever to even choose to believe God that He can change them, then I am at a loss for any need or choise to 'harden' even more. For me, it makes no sense. To me it is like God placing duct tape over a blind mans eyes so he can't see. It serves no purpose.

How He does this? I don't know. That He does it is evident throughout scripture.

Ah... I thought you had some insider information and that I would have some good preaching material this Sunday :laugh:

As for the justice of this--Again, it's not as if God was doing this hardening to Mother Theresa. The hardened whom God hardens further want to have hard hearts.

Well.. I think God did (with respect to Mother T. - but that is just me)
Just because a person does murder in mass doesn't necessitate a hardened heart. We can find the same hardness in the religiously minded.

So, perhaps, a young Hitler was not quite the monster the Hitler of the holocaust was. But, because of God's further hardening of an already hardened heart, Hitler became the monster we all know he was.

Granted, but then again the question comes, Is God doing the hardening their hearts so He can pour upon them greater spiritual judgment for His work in their life? Maybe am just not understanding your concept here - actaully I am pretty sure it is me.

Not sure if you addressed this point but could you provide me with some scripture to support this contension of hardening to magnify their judgment?

Why do I think this? It is clear that, in Romans, Paul talks about God raising up Pharaoh for a specific purpose. It would seem that the Pharaoh of the Exodus existed to be a pinata for God. Before my Calvinist days, I used to argue that Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardened it. But, I was wrong about that then. God tells Moses that He (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart. Now, we know that Pharaoh was not the poster-child for righteousness, but God still hardens his heart to make an example out of him.

If I may on this..
Yes, God did tell Moses He would harden Pharoahs heart, but that does not mean God was the reason Pharoah first hardened his heart. I say this becuase scripture does state specifically 'when' God began hardening and that was 'after' pharoah initial hardening. I believe to assume God's statement meant that He was going to be the intial hardener of Pharoah's heart we would see scripture detail that God did this, as it does in the other instances. It 'almost' sounds like God is become the author of Pharoah's disobedience.

In the episode of the Exodus, you have an already unbelieving person (Pharaoh) being hardened by God to increase the judgment (the plagues) so that God's own glory is magnified and proclaimed throughout the world.

So are you contending the 'judgment' of which you speak is physical and not spiritual? -- maybe I'm just to tired to be one here :laugh:

And in all of that, according to Paul, God is absolutely justified in doing what He did. Pharaoh was created for dishonorable purposes; Moses was created for honorable purposes.

I have no issue or problem with that IF Pharoah was the intial hardener of heart. The only time in scripture we see God giving men over to their sins is after they chosen sin over righteousness. In fact we see God sending forth a strong delusion (hardening) to those who have rejected truth so that they are sealed in the condemnation (2 Thes 2:10-12)

Blessings to you! (It's 3:20 AM where I'm at...I'm going to bed!). When you get the chance, sleep well, my friend.

The Archangel

I wont get to go to bed until noon today. After work (6am) I go home and wake up the wife and kids for home schooling, say good morning and take shower. Head BACK up here to work at 8am for a meeting till 9am and then from 9 till noon a First aid/CPR class for those in security. So I will be near passing out come then :laugh:


ANWAY - Some of my post is off topic and not necessary something needing to be address. You guys have a pretty good thing going and I would hate to derail. I'll someone else come and do that

 

[Allan]

2 Peter 3:9--Peter is addressing the beloved (presumably Christians) and God is said to be patient towards them...not willing that any should perish...

Since he is addressing believers, Peter is rightly exhorting his listeners to be constantly and consistently examining their lives and their faith to make sure they are, in fact, saved.

This is not a general statement. The "all" is qualified by the "you [plural]" that Peter is addressing as he encourages them.

I agree with you here as this is what the context dictates.

1 Timothy 2:4--In the context, Paul has exhorted his listeners to pray for kings, etc. This is astounding considering the fact that many Christians had already faced persecution and death at the hands of many rulers, not the least of which was the Roman Emperor (Nero, likely at this time).

Paul says to pray for the king is good in the sight of God who desires all to be saved. The all obviously is a reference back to the kings/rulers Paul has just exhorted the people to pray for.

So, in essence, Paul is exhorting the people to pray for the salvation of Nero, among the other oppressive kings/rulers.

Again, the "all" is qualified and does not mean "all without exception."

On this one, I take exception.
The kings and rulers are not the qualifiers for whom the 'all men' phrase is speaking to brother. The Kings and rulers that Paul speaks to is for the purpose of 'including' them into phrase, not to exclude all others. I believe Paul directly addressed their inclusion for the very reasons which you stated. These horrific men and advisaries of the gospel were not whom one would typically think to include in our supplications and intercessions. Vs 3 qualifies his command for their inclusion into the sain't prayers and vss 4-5 expound on this reasoning for their inclusion.

As we see vs 4 conitues on with what the original intent of verse 1 was speaking to. We know this because vs 6 speaks 'back to' the 'all men', yet if we are to hold to your view then Christ was only a ransom for the kings and rulers. However we know this is not the case. Pual is maintaining his thought all the way through regarding whom the 'all men' are, and this meant all inclusively - even toward the very enemies of the church and God.

 

[Skandelon]

OK...one more post before bed.

It can mean all without exception, but it doesn't have to. I agree with a universal call.

I can live with that...

Let me note something here: "if the preaching of the gospel by free creatures is the only means God has chosen to use to draw the world to himself (which it may or may not be)" Are you kidding me? The heresy alarm is going off. Please clarify.

Well, its usually the Calvinist that insist there is another means at work...the "effectual call," by which God "draws" all "his elect" effectually. (still have heresy alarms going off?) I was just acknowledging that God may choose to use other means to bring people into faith with him where the gospel is never preached. Miracles, supernatural interventions, dreams, or even finding scripture etc. Obviously God used all these means in scripture so I don't rule them out has possibilities. The point is that God desires for all to be invited...just like he desires you to resist temptation everytime. It doesn't mean it will necessarily happen just because it's God's desire, nor does it mean God has failed. It simply means God intends/desires for all to hear and repent.

You have several contextual issues here.

2 Peter 3:9--Peter is addressing the beloved (presumably Christians) and God is said to be patient towards them...not willing that any should perish...

Since he is addressing believers, Peter is rightly exhorting his listeners to be constantly and consistently examining their lives and their faith to make sure they are, in fact, saved.

This is not a general statement. The "all" is qualified by the "you [plural]" that Peter is addressing as he encourages them.

Why would he express patience with them if he is the one doing everything in their salvation? What is he waiting on? Himself?

1 Timothy 2:4--In the context, Paul has exhorted his listeners to pray for kings, etc. This is astounding considering the fact that many Christians had already faced persecution and death at the hands of many rulers, not the least of which was the Roman Emperor (Nero, likely at this time).

Paul says to pray for the king is good in the sight of God who desires all to be saved. The all obviously is a reference back to the kings/rulers Paul has just exhorted the people to pray for.

So, in essence, Paul is exhorting the people to pray for the salvation of Nero, among the other oppressive kings/rulers.

Again, the "all" is qualified and does not mean "all without exception."

Wow, and you think I have trouble with Acts 13... I can't imagine anyone objectively reading these texts and walking away thinking anything other than God wanting every person to be saved, but when you have to make a passage fit into your system I guess you do what you have to do.

Romans 10:14--I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Paul is exhorting the Romans Christians to do missions. Don't be stupid hyper-Calvinists! Get out there and do the work that God has commanded you to do--make disciples.

Since the elect are unknown to everyone but God, it makes sense to go to everyone calling them to repentance and faith.

I'm simply affirming what we both agree upon already...that God has sent the message to ALL without exception. I'm just not sure why you would believe that God would want all without exception to hear the gospel, but not desire all with out exception to believe the gospel. Explain that seeming contradiction.

 

[Skandelon]

Not to worry...no interruption.

I think "blind" is not the best word here for this discussion. But, as far as hardening goes, I think it is clear that God gives sinners what they want--sometimes. He turns them over to their sinful desires--He removes His common grace--and allows them to be worse.

How He does this? I don't know. That He does it is evident throughout scripture.

I wanted to comment on this one reply to Allan. I think the scripture does give us some insight on how he hardened them. It think he uses supernatural means and "normal" human means:

1. He spoke in parables so some could not understand (human means)
2. He sent them a "spirit of stupor"
3. In Pharaoh's case there were other magicians duplicating the plagues with "tricks"
4. He "blinded" them spiritually
5. He provoked them with hard teachings...(i.e. eat my flesh and drink my blood)


I point these out because God is actively hardening Israel in their rebellious condition. Paul, who was also a hardened Pharisee, was confronted in such a powerful way that it convinced him to change direction. If the so called "effectual call" (regeneration) is being employed by God why was it necessary for God to blind Paul in this way? Wasn't the point of the supernatural intervention to change Paul's will? Couldn't a simple act of regeneration have accomplished the same thing?

BTW, I know you are answering a lot of posts but please don't miss #43. I'm interested to hear your responses: http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1506688&postcount=43

 

[The Archangel]

So, you admit that God needed to blind Pharaoh in order to keep him from being convinced and believing before the appointed time, but when it comes to the Jews being hardened, there is no need? Explain.

No, I don't think God "needed" to blind Pharaoh. Pharaoh was already hardened because he was a sinner--like the rest of humanity.

The Jews were hardened by nature of their being human.

A further hardening was given so that the sin would be greater, the judgment more substantial, and God's glory would be maximized.

You don't think that the hardening actually accomplished what the bible says it accomplished..."For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." John 12:39-40

It seems like you are arguing that these people didn't NEED to be hardened, so God only did this to magnify his glory. But I see at least 3 major issues with that.

1. The bible tells us why God hardened them. To keep them from seeing, hearing or repenting.

2. The bible tells us what they could have done OTHERWISE.

As Paul tells us CLEARLY: "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

3. How does it bring God more glory to confuse his people by making it appear that he needed to blind men born already totally blind? Hardening Pharaoh brought Him more Glory because it prevented Pharaoh from being convinced too soon so as to make sure more plagues were completed, thus God's Glory was revealed more fully. That makes sense.

Hardening Jews brought God more glory because it prevented them from repenting and believing before they crucified Christ and before the Gentiles were established in the church. Both of which brings God more glory. That makes sense.

But if the Jews didn't NEED to be hardened (as you seem to be arguing here) then what is the point? How does this act bring God more glory? Please explain.

Sure it says they were hardened to keep them from seeing. But it doesn't say when they were hardened. The hardness of humanity--because of the fall--is present in every human (ie. a heart that desires only evil continually and a heart that is desperately wicked).

If election is talked about in terms of "before the foundation of the world" then reprobation must take place in the same time-frame.

Again, a further hardening--giving them exactly what they want, according to the flesh--happened. I would argue that this is God removing His restraint against evil and allowing the hardened to pursue evil with gusto. After all, the only-evil-continually heart has to be restrained, or else all of humanity would plunge into the anarchy we see immediately before the flood.

It's not judgement enough to lock them from birth into a totally depraved nature predestining them to certain condemnation because of a couple ate a forbidden fruit? You are saying he needed to emphasize his judgement further by doing something to them they already had done to them from birth due to the fall? Really?

God may do as He pleases. If He chooses to harden further--which He does--then so be it.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

No, I don't think God "needed" to blind Pharaoh. Pharaoh was already hardened because he was a sinner--like the rest of humanity.

That seems to contradict what you said earlier when you agreed with me... I'll repost it here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon
Correct. Synonyms. Pharaoh was already a rebellious person. God simply blinded/hardened him in that rebellion so he could not see and understand the obvious truth all around him.

Your answer: I can buy that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon
I think we agree on this point. Assuming you mean what I think you mean. But, I will say that the REASON there was NO CHANCE that Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go too early is because God was actively blinding him. Had God not intervened I suspect that a few plagues would have convinced him. But as you stated, God wanted his Glory to be made known and he had a lesson to teach in the Passover plague.

Your answer: Certainly possible. And, this is what I meant.

The Jews were hardened by nature of their being human.

If this is true, then answer these three questions:

1. Why doesn't it describe them being in this condition from birth? Why does it speak of them BECOMING like this over time?
2. Why does Paul contrast those who are being hardened (Israel) with those who "will listen" (Gentiles)? (Acts 28:28)
3. Why does it describe what they "might" have done "otherwise?"

A further hardening was given so that the sin would be greater, the judgment more substantial, and God's glory would be maximized.

But, what is point? In my system, there is a REASON for God hardening the Jews. To keep them in darkness so they would not believe. He used their rebellion to crucify Jesus and he allowed for a time where the Gentiles could be grafted into the vine.

In your system, there is no purpose for the hardening because they would have done exactly what they did regardless of whether or not God hardened them or not. How does God kicking them while their down bring him more glory? How do you judge someone more than by sending them to eternal damnation? There is no good reason for hardening in your system. It is redundant at best and accomplishes NOTHING.