Any Calvinist willing to walk through Romans 11 with me?

[Skandelon]

I have explained why the language in Romans 9, in context, does not fit speaking "generally" of Israel and Gentiles. It is personal in nature.

Why? Because it mentions a couple of examples, all of which were representative of something bigger than themselves? Plus, you once again ignore the fact that I accept the individual/personal aspect of the passage. I accept that certain INDIVIDUALS are being hardened and others are being shown mercy, just as they are in Romans 11. There are nations/groups and the individuals making up those nations/groups IN BOTH Romans 9 and 11. I'm just asking you to be consistent.

Well, since "apostle" isn't mentioned anywhere in the text, I don't understand how you can proclaim this interpretation to be "clear".

Oh, you want to start interpreting scripture by that method? Ok. The terms "irresistible grace," "effectual call," "Total Depravity," "unconditional election," and "limited atonement" are all noticeably absent from not only this passage but from the entire bible, but those are all terms used to by Calvinistic/Reformed scholars to support their system.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

I didn't think you were being serious. What does Methodism have to do with this discussion? Just because the scholar I referenced from decades ago was a methodist minister has nothing to do with this. I'm not a Methodist and never have been, and ones view on Romans 9-11 has nothing to do with the distinctions between Baptists and Methodists. BTW, Methodism is much closer to modern Baptist doctrines than was the doctrines of the Reformers.

And you assume I don't "grapple" with scripture and other people's interpretation thereof. That isn't true. I followed the link and read (attempted to read) the commentary on Rom. 9-11. It was, as I susupected, the arminian perspective. Nothing new.

I didn't assume that. I deduced it from your responses to me. For example, Clarke didn't argue the "foreseen" faith view that has become more popular today.

partially correct which equals incorrect. Nothing about looking through the corridors of time is needed to understand "foreknew"

.
That is why the word "NOT" was there. Some non-Calvinists would say that God "just look through the corridors of time," while Calvinists don't, which is what I wrote. There is nothing "incorrect" about that.

Incorrect. They were "hardened" because of their rebellion against God and His Law.

I agree, however that is really not the ultimate cause. They were rebellious against God and His Law because _________________? Fill in the blank and you will see how I was correct.

? Never heard this before.. but then again, I'm not a calvinist

.Well that is how another Calvinist on this board answered this argument earlier, but I wonder how you answer it.

If all mankind is born unable to willingly believe in Christ, then why did God need to blind them and hardened them so that they would believe? Why blind a man who is born Totally Blind from birth?

Incorrect. Judicial hardening refers generally to Jews and is partial, meaning some will be saved.

So, if some of those who are judicially hardened in Romans 9 might be saved, then Paul could NOT be supporting the idea that those being hardened are the non-elect while those being shown mercy are the elect.

Can you point to any scholar who argues this point so I can study up on what you are arguing? You say you're not a Calvinist but you haven't offered any references or scholarship as support for me to better understand the perspective from which you are approaching this text. Remember, when I presented these I told you I was giving the Calvinistic perspective...I still haven't figured out your perspective. That is why I'm asking you all these questions and pointing you to scholars.

Incorrect. God's expressions of longing and love are genuine. He really does want everyone to repent and believe. No one responds favorably to His expressions, because no one is able due to sin. God, of course, knows this, but that doesn't make His expressions any less genuine. God, in His mercy, actively intervenes and saves those He has chosen.

Again, I was presenting the Calvinistic perspective that I have encountered. I know there are varying approaches from different "Calvinistic" persuasions, but this is not incorrect, its almost a verbatim quote from Calvinistic sources.

BTW, there is a HUGE difference in foreseeing someone won't respond to your genuine appeal and making someone so as they can't respond to your appeal. You appear to equate the two in the statement above. And before you say it, yes, if God judged mankind for the sin of Adam by making them all born in a state of totally inability then HE is the one who made them unable as an act of judgement or punishment.

Incorrect. Although the result is that their rebellion (and God's love) is more clearly shown, that is not the "only" reason that God makes His invitations

So, my answer was not wrong, but just incomplete? Out of curiosity could you tell me what other reasons God has for his invitations, longings and expressions of patience? Thanks.

First you say,

"Concerning your attempt to articulate calvinist doctrine, I can only tell you what I believe, since I'm not a calvinist

Then, with regard to how I represented Calvinism, you say

Quite frankly, rather poorly.

You don't see the contradiction there?

I think you are a man who has deep convictions on these issues. I pray before God that you have not compromised your integrity in this pursuit.

Thank you for your prayers. I appreciate them. I never want to lose my integrity in pursuit of anything.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you. But since you really can't articulate reformed doctrine very well,

Again, you seem to contradict yourself...I think most people generally view "Calvinistic" doctrine as synonymous with "reformed" doctrine.

and you didn't answer my question directly before, please tell me plainly that you are not pretending to be a baptist or pretending that you used to be a calvinist.

I work for a Baptist denomination as my father and grandfather did before me. And as far as my Calvinism goes, you can see for yourself by simply looking through the archives on this forum from back in early 2003. Is that proof enough?

 

[canadyjd]

Thank you for the debate. It has run its course.

peace to youraying:

 

[BaptistBob]

3. Gentiles: The non-Jews who are being grafted into the tree so that they can listen to the appeal of the message of reconciliation and respond in faith. They are not being hardened like Israel, but they will listen (Acts 28:28)

IMO, the reason the Calvinist makes a mistake in understanding Paul is that he thinks there are really 4 groups in Paul's mind:
(1) The elect of Israel (Remnant - those being shown mercy),
(2) The Non-elect of Israel (Hardened ones)
(3) The elect Gentiles (those being shown mercy)
(4) The non-elect Gentiles (? - no term because its not there)

The reason this CAN'T work is because those being hardened (group 2) might be saved according to Romans 11:14 and 23; and those being shown mercy (group 3) might be "cut off" according to verses 21 and 22.

I'm fine with that, but "beforehand" as in before the world began and before He held out his hands to them in patience longing to gather them, or "beforehand" as in before showing mercy to the other vessels? And after their constant rebellion and obstinate refusal to come to him? In your view, you have God seemly being disingenuously pretending to long for Israel and waiting patiently for them to repent, all while predetermining their rebellion and subsequent wrath. This is NOT the objection Paul is anticipating, this is a MUCH more severe and outrageous objection than the one Paul is answering in this passage.

Although my theological approach is quite different, I do agree with a lot of your position as well.

I'm still trying to grasp all the nuances of your approach (still reading posts), so you may have already addressed this. Oddly, the Calvinist wants to make the "patience" of 2:4 and 9:22 mean the exact opposite thing. However, Paul's point is that God's judicial hardening is the result of handing them over to their sin for a time, as a plan to save them. The section culminates with the revelation that this action on the part of God was done to bring in the Gentiles, thereby making Israel jealous, resulting in some being saved. In other words, the judicial hardening is over. (By that I do not mean to say that the historical cycle is not repeated.)

30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

The repetition of "now" makes the concept emphatic! "Now" the situation has changed! What situation? This situation:

"..so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too might be shown mercy"

The phrase "in order that" is important here. Is Paul saying that the Jews intentionally made themselves disobedient because they wanted to be saved? That seems unlikely. Rather, Paul's intention is to say that God put forth faith in Christ as the basis of which God would show mercy. The Jews stumbled over this concept, just as God had planned. He handed them over to this disobedience (hardening) and let the Gentiles in to make the Jews jealous. The hardening is now over so that the second stage of the plan can be underway. The "now......now...........now..." of this section brings home the concept, leaving no doubt.

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Hardening is for salvation.

 

[Skandelon]

Thank you for the debate. It has run its course.

peace to youraying:

As I asked several times, is there a scholar who argues your perspective on these passage so I can read it and better understand your perspective?

 

[Skandelon]

Although my theological approach is quite different, I do agree with a lot of your position as well.

I'm still trying to grasp all the nuances of your approach (still reading posts), so you may have already addressed this. Oddly, the Calvinist wants to make the "patience" of 2:4 and 9:22 mean the exact opposite thing. However, Paul's point is that God's judicial hardening is the result of handing them over to their sin for a time, as a plan to save them. The section culminates with the revelation that this action on the part of God was done to bring in the Gentiles, thereby making Israel jealous, resulting in some being saved.

Absolutely, there really is no place for divine patience in the Calvinistic system. After all, what is he waiting on? Himself? As evidenced in this very thread and in many others before this one, when this question (along with a couple others) is brought up the debate typically comes to a end pretty quickly thereafter. Revealing...

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Hardening is for salvation.

AMEN!!!

Our God is so much more loving and merciful than any of our theological concepts make him out to be! Even in hardening people he has a purpose of redemption, AMAZING LOVE!

 

[canadyjd]

As I asked several times, is there a scholar who argues your perspective on these passage so I can read it and better understand your perspective?

On many occasions I have watched those who believe the doctrines of grace quote from various scholars to support their positions.

The response is almost always "That just proves you are following the doctrines of men...not the bible". I tend not to quote other sources for that reason. I am telling you what I believe to be true in the context it was written.

Perhaps you could point me to a main stream "calvinist" that believes what you said...

but in reality God did not choose those who are unwilling and thus didn't really "want" them to come to him.

I have never read anyone holding to reformed theology that believes God doesn't really want the non-elect to come to Him... just the opposite.

or that believe...

Except for the remnant who were chosen by God unto salvation, Israel has been "judicially hardened" by God because they were not elected to salvation.

I have never read anyone holding to reformed theology that believes people are hardened because they are not elected to salvation. People are hardened because of their rebellion against God.

That is why I said you did rather poorly in articulating reformed theology. Those comments seem more like an arminian version of reformed doctrine.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

I have never read anyone holding to reformed theology that believes people are hardened because they are not elected to salvation. People are hardened because of their rebellion against God.

We can start with Calvin himself and go from there:

Calvin wrote: 18. To whom he wills then he showeth mercy, etc. Here follows the conclusion of both parts; which can by no means be understood as being the language of any other but of the Apostle; for he immediately addresses an opponent, and adduces what might have been objected by an opposite party. There is therefore no doubt but that Paul, as we have already reminded you, speaks these things in his own person, namely, that God, according to his own will, favors with mercy them whom he pleases, and unsheathes the severity of his judgment against whomsoever it seemeth him good. That our mind may be satisfied with the difference which exists between the elect and the reprobate, and may not inquire for any cause higher than the divine will, his purpose was to convince us of this — that it seems good to God to illuminate some that they may be saved, and to blind others that they may perish: for we ought particularly to notice these words, to whom he wills, and, whom he wills: beyond this he allows us not to proceed.


The Geneva Study Bible (complied by many Reformed theologians)

Then follow the fruits of hardening, that is, unbelief and sin, which are the true and proper causes of the condemnation of the reprobate. Why does he then appoint to destruction? Because he wishes: why does he harden? Because they are corrupt: why does he condemn? Because they are sinners. Where then is unrighteousness? Nay, if he would destroy all after this manner, to whom would he do injury?

Like I said, their corruption may be listed as one of the reasons, but the FIRST reason is because "he wishes" to appoint them to "destruction."

Need I go on?

 

[Winman]

Piper believes the non-elect were chosen for hardening, see #7

Seven Contextual Evidences for Unconditional Hardening

Now, what are the evidences in this text that the words "He hardens whomever he wills," in Romans 9:18 means that God freely and unconditionally decides who will be hard and who will not?

1. First, that’s what the words most naturally mean. "He hardens whomever he wills," says that his will and not our will is decisive in hardening. To be sure, our will rebels and is hard against God. But the natural meaning of these words is that God’s will is decisive beneath and behind our willing without nullifying the importance of our will.

2. Second, the exact parallel with mercy shows that the act of God in hardening is as unconditional as the act of God in having mercy. Verse 18 says, "He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." So if we believe that God’s showing mercy is unconditional, the most natural way to take the parallel is that the hardening is unconditional.

3. Third, this is in fact exactly what Paul infers from God’s words in verse 15, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." Paul draws out of this in verse 16, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." If that is what "I have mercy on whom I have mercy" means, then it is probably what "I harden whom I harden" means, namely, "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who hardens."

4. Fourth, the parallel with Jacob and Esau shows that mercy and hardening are unconditional. Paul said in verses 11 and 13, "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad . . . As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’" In other words, the context demands that Paul address not just the love and mercy part of God’s sovereignty but also the hate and hardening part of God’s sovereignty. The parallel with Jacob and Esau in verse 13 shows that the hardening and the mercy are unconditional.

5. Fifth, the objection and Paul’s answer to it in verse 19 show that Paul did not deal with God’s sovereignty the way most people deal with it today. Paul raises the objection: "You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’" Now at this point most people today say, God finds fault because his hardening is a response to our prior self-hardening.

For example, one popular, and usually good commentary, says,

"Neither here nor anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself." That Pharaoh hardened his heart against God and refused to humble himself is made plain in the story. So God’s hardening of him was a judicial act, abandoning him to his own stubbornness. [note 1]

Let me say this calmly and firmly: That is exactly the opposite of what Romans 9:18 teaches. And the fifth reason that I say so is this: Paul could have so easily removed the objection of verse 19 that way, and he did not! The objector hears Paul say, "God hardens whomever he wills," and he responds, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" How easily Paul could have answered the objection with all the answers of modern man! And he didn’t. Because they are the wrong answer. They turn his teaching right on its head. He said, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" Indeed he said more – but in a direction exactly the opposite of what people today (or then) expect.

6. Sixth, verse 21 shows that Paul sees mercy and hardening as unconditional because he speaks of the objects of mercy and hardening as coming from the same lump of clay: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump (there’s the crucial phrase!) one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" The stress is that it was not the nature of the clay that determined what God would do with it. It was the free and wise and sovereign will of the potter. He has mercy on whom he wills and he hardens whom he wills – from the same lump of clay.

7. Seventh, we read in Romans 11:7, "What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened." In other words the decisive issue in who is hardened and who is not is election, not some prior willing or running on our part, but God who elects. "The elect obtained it, the rest were hardened" (11:7). "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" (9:13). "He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (9:18).

 

[thomas15]

Revealing....

Question? Have you posted anywhere your personal doctrinal statement?

 

[Winman]

Here is the source of John Piper's comments above.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper2/piper2003/2-9-03.htm

 

[The Archangel]

Piper believes the non-elect were chosen for hardening, see #7

And your point would be?

 

[Winman]

And your point would be?

I do not believe as Calvinism teaches that God unconditionally hardens men. All men who are hardened showed rebellion first.

Look at Pharaoh. First, we see God's foreknowledge.

Exo 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

This was said before Moses encountered Pharaoh. God already knew that Pharaoh was very proud and obstinate and would not listen to Moses.

Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Here it does say God will harden Pharaoh's heart. But you cannot dismiss that God had already said he was sure Pharaoh would not let the people go.

Now, it does say many times that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But the scriptures also say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Exo 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the LORD had spoken by Moses.

Now, let me ask you a question. If it was God's will that Pharaoh's heart be hardened, then why does it say Pharaoh sinned yet more? How can you do the will of God and sin at the same time?

So you see, it was not God's will that Pharaoh's heart be hardened, but God knew that Pharaoh would become more and more obstinate.

And this is easily observed by all of us, even on this forum. When one person presents scripture that contradicts another's doctrine, that person becomes offended. They get angry, primarily because of pride, nobody likes to be shown they are wrong. A very few people will humble themselves and admit when they are wrong, but oftentimes a person will become more and more stubborn and obstinate. And if you show them more evidence they are wrong they will grow even more obstinate. I think all of us have experienced this.

The worst fight I ever had with my wife was over the words of a song. She was singing to that old Bob Dylan song, Lay Lady Lay. She sang "you can have your pig and eat it too". Well, I laughed out loud and told her that is not how the song goes, it says, "you can have your cake and eat it too" (and that is how it goes). Well, she became very angry, probably because I laughed at her and insisted she was mistaken. I told her she was wrong and "pig" makes no sense at all.

Believe it or not, she got so angry at me that we barely said a word to each other for two weeks. Yes, a very dumb thing to argue about, but she really got upset when I laughed at her and told her she was wrong. And the more I persisted in telling her she was wrong, the angrier and more obstinate she became.

So, this is how God hardened Pharaoh. Everytime he brought a plague on Pharaoh, Pharoah just got angrier and more stubborn. Even his servants tried to convince him to give in to Moses.

Exo 10:7 And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?

Pharaoh's servants were not so proud and stubborn as Pharaoh, they begged him to let Moses and the people go, but he would not listen to them or anyone else.

So, God does not harden people without just cause. It is when a person shows persistent rebellion and obstinance to God that he hardens them.

 

[The Archangel]

I do not believe as Calvinism teaches that God unconditionally hardens men. All men who are hardened showed rebellion first.

Look at Pharaoh. First, we see God's foreknowledge.

Exo 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

This was said before Moses encountered Pharaoh. God already knew that Pharaoh was very proud and obstinate and would not listen to Moses.

Umm...no.

You see, Paul would disagree with you. Paul says that God raised up Pharaoh expressly for the purpose of the destruction that would befall him and Egypt.

Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

So, it is not "foreknowledge" as you continue to mistakenly understand it. The root of "I know" is the same root that appears in Genesis when God says He "Knew" Abraham, meaning chose. So, it's possible that God chose Pharaoh not to let the people go. Actually, that's exactly what Paul is saying.

So, the divine work of God is clearly in view first, not the work of Pharaoh. God created Pharaoh to be who he was so that God's glory would be shown in wrestling the people away from him.

This is basic theology.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

So, God does not harden people without just cause. It is when a person shows persistent rebellion and obstinance to God that he hardens them.

Wrong:

Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

You see, Paul would disagree with you. Paul says that God raised up Pharaoh expressly for the purpose of the destruction that would befall him and Egypt.

Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

It's amazing how something can be right before your eyes, yet you fail to see it.

Does it say God hardened Pharaoh that he might show his power and his name be proclaimed?

No, it says "raised you up". God already knew how incredibly proud and obstinate Pharaoh would be, therefore he raised him up to the powerful position of Pharaoh or king of Egypt that he might demonstrate his power.

You read into Romans 9:17 what it does not say. Read it again.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It's amazing how something can be right before your eyes, yet you fail to see it.

Does it say God hardened Pharaoh that he might show his power and his name be proclaimed?

No, it says "raised you up". God already knew how incredibly proud and obstinate Pharaoh would be, therefore he raised him up to the powerful position of Pharaoh or king of Egypt that he might demonstrate his power.

You read into Romans 9:17 what it does not say. Read it again.

what about the little word "therefore" in the next verse, which joins the thought of verse 17 and 18 ?

therefore is defined in the dictionary as:
–adverb in consequence of that; as a result; consequently: I think; therefore I am.

As you said, God already knew how incredibly proud and obstinate Pharaoh would be, and if He wanted to he can soften his heart as opposed to harden his heart, yet He did not.

More information on the word, therefore:

—Synonyms
hence, whence. Therefore, wherefore, accordingly, consequently, so, then all introduce a statement resulting from, or caused by, what immediately precedes. Therefore (for this or that reason) and wherefore (for which reason) imply exactness of reasoning; they are esp. used in logic, law, mathematics, etc., and in a formal style of speaking or writing. Accordingly (in conformity with the preceding) and consequently (as a result, or sequence, or effect of the preceding), although also somewhat formal, occur mainly in less technical contexts. So (because the preceding is true or this being the case) and then (since the preceding is true) are informal or conversational in tone.


As you can see, Pharaoh is a perfect example of an unregenerate, spiritually dead, totally separated from God sinner, who will remain so, except if the Holy Spirit quickens him.

 

[The Archangel]

It's amazing how something can be right before your eyes, yet you fail to see it.

Does it say God hardened Pharaoh that he might show his power and his name be proclaimed?

No, it says "raised you up". God already knew how incredibly proud and obstinate Pharaoh would be, therefore he raised him up to the powerful position of Pharaoh or king of Egypt that he might demonstrate his power.

You read into Romans 9:17 what it does not say. Read it again.

Now, this is good comic relief.

Do you think the Pharaohs of Egypt were elected by vote? Do you think the Pharaohs came to power of their own accord? Hardly.

The Pharaohs came to the throne by family succession. That means that the son usually succeeded the father. So a Pharaoh begat another Pharaoh.

Since this is the case, God would have to place a certain individual into the Pharaohic line to suit His purposes perfectly, which is exactly what happened.

Not to mention, that "raise you up" is a typical Hebrew idiom that refers to God's action.

So, there is no way (except in the bizarre-o Winman-land that you live in) that this is anything other than God acting to bring about His exact purposes--and doing so by actively hardening Pharaoh's heart.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

what about the little word "therefore" in the next verse, which joins the thought of verse 17 and 18 ?

therefore is defined in the dictionary as:
–adverb in consequence of that; as a result; consequently: I think; therefore I am.

As you said, God already knew how incredibly proud and obstinate Pharaoh would be, and if He wanted to he can soften his heart as opposed to harden his heart, yet He did not.

More information on the word, therefore:

—Synonyms
hence, whence. Therefore, wherefore, accordingly, consequently, so, then all introduce a statement resulting from, or caused by, what immediately precedes. Therefore (for this or that reason) and wherefore (for which reason) imply exactness of reasoning; they are esp. used in logic, law, mathematics, etc., and in a formal style of speaking or writing. Accordingly (in conformity with the preceding) and consequently (as a result, or sequence, or effect of the preceding), although also somewhat formal, occur mainly in less technical contexts. So (because the preceding is true or this being the case) and then (since the preceding is true) are informal or conversational in tone.


As you can see, Pharaoh is a perfect example of an unregenerate, spiritually dead, totally separated from God sinner, who will remain so, except if the Holy Spirit quickens him.

Well, I agree God hardened Pharaoh, the scriptures say so, although I understand it differently than you. Anyone who confronted Pharaoh would harden him, he was a super proud and super stubborn man. By continuing to confront Pharaoh God hardened him.

Could God have softened him? I am sure he could have. He could have given him one hour in hell, I believe that would soften anybody up, even Pharaoh.

But Pharaoh had multiple chances to repent and obey God. Some scholars think the plagues took place over about a 6 month period. That is a long time to see incredible miracles and still not repent.

And Pharaoh could not have been said to sin if it was God's will he be hardened. It was God's will he humble himself, the scriptures say so.

Exo 10:3 And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people go, that they may serve me.

God clearly placed the blame on Pharaoh for not humbling himself. Unless you believe God blames others for his own acts.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Well, I agree God hardened Pharaoh, the scriptures say so, although I understand it differently than you. Anyone who confronted Pharaoh would harden him, he was a super proud and super stubborn man. By continuing to confront Pharaoh God hardened him.

Okay, I think I understand what you're trying to say.
Hopefully, that is, lol.
(I just got scolded by a customer for mispronouncing parameters...lol)

Could God have softened him? I am sure he could have. He could have given him one hour in hell, I believe that would soften anybody up, even Pharaoh.

And that's what Paul was saying. It's all up to God to choose whom He will harden (by letting his own fallen nature work against himself) or soften (that is, through the work of regeneration wrought by the Spirit and is a perfect illustration of election and the doctrine of grace.
Here in the case of Pharaoh, God left Pharaoh to the natural consequences and choices of a fallen nature. Remember Amalek whom God warned in a dream about Sarai in fact being Abram's wife (I think they were already Sarah and Abraham at that point) ?
That is another illustration of God's selective intervention on behalf of His people.

But Pharaoh had multiple chances to repent and obey God. Some scholars think the plagues took place over about a 6 month period. That is a long time to see incredible miracles and still not repent.

Which underscores, if you will, the fact that unregenerate men will not come to the mercy seat at all, even if the world turns upside down. Look at the book of Revelation and the bowls and vials of plagues God pours down on the earth. Do men repent ?
They call on their religions and their idols.

And Pharaoh could not have been said to sin if it was God's will he be hardened. It was God's will he humble himself, the scriptures say so.

Exo 10:3 And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people go, that they may serve me.

God knew Pharaoh will not let his people go. This question is simply to emphasize that truth. Remember that God's people are the Jews. He is fighting for them. Pharaoh is not His own. He may be His creation through Adam, but He is not among God's people.

God clearly placed the blame on Pharaoh for not humbling himself. Unless you believe God blames others for his own acts.

And so with the rest of humanity. You see, what is obviously hard for you and others to grasp, or refuse to (please, I am not picking a fight here, just saying what I surmise) is that God is absolutely blameless for anyone's going to hell or getting damned because in the transgression of Adam the seed of rebellion (and I may not be saying this correctly) has been part of the natural man and so it takes a regenerate man, one with a second nature added, to fully obey God.

He only regenerates His own, and they all have been judged in Christ who took responsibility for their sins, and that's what I mean when I said in my previous posts that the unredeemed go to hell because they have no redeemer and so they are responsible for their own sins.

 

[canadyjd]

We can start with Calvin himself and go from there: Calvin wrote: 18.......?

Like I said, their corruption may be listed as one of the reasons, but the FIRST reason is because "he wishes" to appoint them to "destruction."

Need I go on?

You didn't address the issue of God holding out His hands to the Jews. Show me Calvin saying God didn't really want these people (non-elect) to come to Him. Show me Calvin saying that God is disingenuous when He calls on the non-elect to come to Him.

That is your accusation. I didn't see that in the commentary you quoted.

peace to youraying: