Deuteronomy 5:29

[The Biblicist]

23 ¶ And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

I have quoted a larger portion of the immeidate context to show that verses 28-29 were said at the time that Israel first came to Mount Sinai when they were initially given the ten commandments after just coming out of Egypt. Hence, the time frame for this statement was just about a week after they left Egypt. Notice the time frame spelled out beginning in verse 23:

23 ¶ And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;

Now continue to follow the tense used in verses 24-29

1. "ye said" - vv. 24-27
2. "And the Lord heard your words" - v. 28a
3. "And the Lord said unto me" - vv. 28b-30.

So there can be no question that this text recounts the historical acts and words exchanged between Israel with Moses and the Lord with Moses at the time of Exodus 19-20.

Now, look at verse 29:

29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever

This text necessarily infers the following:

1. They did not possess such a heart when God said this or else the Lord's words are senseless.

2. Such a heart if possessed "would fear me, and keep all my comandments always" as there is no other stated reason for them to obtain such a heart.

3. Thus exposure to the revealed Word of God did not enable or provide such ability but that ability only comes with such a heart.

4. Hence, from the time they came out of Egypt they did not possess this kind of heart.

Now, consider Deuteronomy 29:4 which is stated 40 years later after God had said Deuteronomy 5:29:

4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

This verse demands the necessary infererences:

1. Such a heart must be "given" to them by the Lord and the Lord had not "given" such a heart to them "unto this day."

2. The reason stated for possessing such a heart is "to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear"

3. Therefore, without such a heart there is no ability "to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear."

4. They have been without this kind of heart at least from Deuteronomy 5:29 until Deuteronomy 29:4 "The Lord hath not given you an heart to.....until this day."

CONCLUSION: Skandelon and the Arminian position claims that all lost men have such a heart "to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear" from natural birth and that "hardening" is the willful resistance to truth that produces "hardening" where they lose this ability or cease to have eyes to see and ears to hear or ability to perceive. However, Deuteronomy 5;29 and 29:4 prove that such ability "to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear" or such a heart with that spiritual ability had NEVER been given to them and yet they HARDENED the heart they were in possession of. This proves that hardening occurs without the ability to "perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear" but rather has reference to the heart they are naturally born with, or the fallen heart, which can "harden" or resist and reject light but is without SPIRITUAL ABILITY to "perceive" or "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" without a NEW heart being first given. Hence, hardening refers to the natural state and the natural conscience and its natural response to light whereas spiritual perception only comes with being given a NEW HEART by God as demanded by Deut. 5:29 and 29:4.

If you disagree with my conclusion, note that my conclusion is based upon the numerical defined points above and is the natural conclusion to those points. If you disagree, please be kind enough to identify the number above where you believe my logic or inference drawn is incorrect and why.

Thus far, one post by Bob has actually addressed the context from which the OP has been drawn but thus far none have addressed the contextual based reasons I have given nor provided any contextual based reasons why those conclusions are not contextual based.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thus far, one post by Bob has actually addressed the context from which the OP has been drawn but thus far none have addressed the contextual based reasons I have given nor provided any contextual based reasons why those conclusions are not contextual based.

Kram, i do not disagree with your conclusion so I will not debate it. What I dont understand however is WHY NOT.....why didnt He provide them with sight that they could change into the people He wanted them to be. Do you have any insight into that?

 

[Iconoclast]

If I used this kind of rhetoric I would be charged with being unChristlike, threatened with being banned.

:laugh: Yes....neither Winman nor Bob are able to do what was asked of them...In fact Winman mocks himself by making fun of your request to stay in the passage as if context did not matter.
Bob repeating his out of context texts demonstates that he does not understand salvation biblically if he thinks it can be lost. Bottom line is he describes a works system when the bible describes a grace system.
Winman only seems to want to disrupt any post:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

If I used this kind of rhetoric I would be charged with being unChristlike, threatened with being banned.

The only good thing to be seen here ....is the truth stands out against the error, the mocking, and the lack of anything coherent.

 

[Skandelon]

Guys, if you feel someone has broken the rules then please PM them or report them to the moderator of this forum (which I'm not), but don't change the topic of thread please.

 

[Skandelon]

Kram, i do not disagree with your conclusion so I will not debate it. What I dont understand however is WHY NOT.....why didnt He provide them with sight that they could change into the people He wanted them to be. Do you have any insight into that?

This is a really good question. On numerous occasions God expresses a longing desire, patience and then anger or frustration with these people for their choices. If all that is needed to change them into what He has expressly proclaimed as his desire is a irresistible work of regeneration, then why not do it? What is he patiently waiting on? Himself?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is a really good question. On numerous occasions God expresses a longing desire, patience and then anger or frustration with these people for their choices. If all that is needed to change them into what He has expressly proclaimed as his desire is a irresistible work of regeneration, then why not do it? What is he patiently waiting on? Himself?

SIDE NOTE: when attempting to be better (like in the game of chess) one always wants to improve & the best way to do that is to play/engage a better player than yourself.

 

[The Biblicist]

Kram, i do not disagree with your conclusion so I will not debate it. What I dont understand however is WHY NOT.....why didnt He provide them with sight that they could change into the people He wanted them to be. Do you have any insight into that?

Deuteronomy 5:29 occurs in a private conversation between God and Moses in response to Israel's bold assertion they can and will keep His covenant. It is God's declared observation that their mouth does not match their heart.

Deutronomy 29:4 comes from Moses speaking to Israel in lieu of all the miracles and signs they had witnessed the past 40 years and yet they rebelled and it is his observation that God has not given them spirtiual perception, spiritual eyes or ears. Hence, Moses believed that such ability had to be given and Moses was pretty tight with God. God himself reaffirms this cause (new heart) and consequence (obedience) relationship in Ezek. 36:26-27 as inherent in New Covenant salvation.

Both observations are selected and recorded by the Holy Spirit as accurate reflections of their true condition.

The reason why God did not give them such a heart is known to him and the only response provided in this same chapter is found at the close of the chapter:

Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

 

[Winman]

The reason why God did not give them such a heart is known to him and the only response provided in this same chapter is found at the close of the chapter:

This is what is known as a "cop out", Biblicist simply refuses to answer.

Well, if I was a Calvinist, I would answer that God did not want them to have this good heart, else he could have easily regenerated them and given it to them.

A person would have to logically conclude that God desires these persons to have sinful hearts.

Sheesh, if you are going to be a Calvinist, at least be a bold one.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is what is known as a "cop out", Biblicist simply refuses to answer.

Well, if I was a Calvinist, I would answer that God did not want them to have this good heart, else he could have easily regenerated them and given it to them.

A person would have to logically conclude that God desires these persons to have sinful hearts.

Sheesh, if you are going to be a Calvinist, at least be a bold one.

The real question is why would God choose to save His enemies. He did not choose to do so with angels who fell. He could just as easily chose to save the fallen angels but He did not. I don't see anyone charging God with being unjust, heartless, unloving because He did not choose to save any of the fallen angels. Arminians should be outraged that God would be so heartless not to save fallen angels when it is clearly in His power to do so.

Bottom line, "20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Nebuchadnezzar learned this lesson well:

35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

 

[Winman]

The real question is why would God choose to save His enemies. He did not choose to do so with angels who fell. He could just as easily chose to save the fallen angels but He did not. I don't see anyone charging God with being unjust, heartless, unloving because He did not choose to save any of the fallen angels. Arminians should be outraged that God would be so heartless not to save fallen angels when it is clearly in His power to do so.

Bottom line, "20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Nebuchadnezzar learned this lesson well:

35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

If God CAUSED the angels to rebel, and then punished them for their rebellion, then YES, God would be unjust.

But in your system, what does it matter what I think? So what? God does whatever he wants. Is God afraid that someone will say he is unjust?

Why don't you be a courageous Calvinist like Arthur Pink? Pink would come right out and say God hated some persons in all eternity, he desires to destroy them for his glory, he desired that they be evil.

Why do we play games like little children and avoid the truth?

Calvinism does not produce many courageous disciples.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The real question is why would God choose to save His enemies. He did not choose to do so with angels who fell. He could just as easily chose to save the fallen angels but He did not. I don't see anyone charging God with being unjust, heartless, unloving because He did not choose to save any of the fallen angels. Arminians should be outraged that God would be so heartless not to save fallen angels when it is clearly in His power to do so.

Bottom line, "20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Nebuchadnezzar learned this lesson well:

35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Angels lived to see God in his glory in Heaven, We have not, I believe this is why God has chosen to allow redemption for mankind.

 

[The Biblicist]

If God CAUSED the angels to rebel, and then punished them for their rebellion, then YES, God would be unjust.

Whatever cause you want to assign to the fall of angels I will be more than happy to assign to men (because it is the same - willful sin). Hence, there is no difference in cause or consequence and so why are you not enraged against God for not saving fallen angels, when it is clearly in His power to do so if He merely chose to do so. You have no grounds against unconditional election for some to salvation among men any more than God's unconditional refusal to redeem fallen angels as both share the same cause (willful sin) and the same consequence (condemnation). The soverign will of God can be the only distinction between God choosing some fallen men to salvation while not choosing any fallen angels to salvation.

Moreover, you are merely side stepping the original issue between us. The whole of human nature existed in Adam when Adam sinned and no one can deny that. Hence, the TOTALITY OF UNFALLEN HUMAN NATURE willfully acted when Adam acted and thus death which is the predicted consequence of sin (Gen. 2:17) is the just condemnation of every individualized human being as their human nature IS the nature which sinned.

 

[BobRyan]

Exodus 24

3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”

Notice that, Miriam, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb and a number of other OT saints are in that group.

Yet "over time" Israel turns to wickedness. And the Levites (among some others) choose to remain faithful to God.

When we look for "details" with the golden calf - at no point does God claim he has sabotaged the system and not given Israel the necessary means to persevere in the initial strong commitment where THEY say Ex 24:3 and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”

Now Deut 5:29 -- 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!.

God's lament is not about "himself" being saboteur of his own plans, or about Himself forgetting to provide the necessary means. Nobody can doubt that.

Is 5:4
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God on that one - informing Him of just what He did wrong - sabotaging His own plans or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.

Moses is addressing the NATION as the covenant at Mount Sinai was not made with individuals but with the NATION as a whole "all the people answered." It is the nation that agreed to this covenant. The nation as a whole was made up of individuals who did not have a heart for God's commandments at the time it was given and the Lord did not "give" them a heart from that time to Deuteronomy 29:4.

The only heart they had from the very point they agreed to the very day explicitly referred to in Deuteronomy 29:3 is a heart unable to "perceive and eyes to see and ears to ear UNTO THIS DAY"

God's lament is not about "himself" being saboteur of his own plans, or about Himself forgetting to provide the necessary means. Nobody can doubt that.

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him NOT" John 1

Deuteronomy 5:29 simply notes the fact they are without such a heart, whereas Deut. 29:4 gives the reason they have no such heart is because God has not "given" it to them.

Exodus 24

3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”

Notice that, Miriam, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb and a number of other OT saints are in that group.

Yet "over time" Israel turns to wickedness. And the Levites (among some others) choose to remain faithful to God.

When we look for "details" with the golden calf - at no point does God claim he has sabotaged the system and not given Israel the necessary means to persevere in the initial strong commitment where THEY say Ex 24:3 and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”

Now Deut 5:29 -- 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!.

God's lament is not about "himself" being saboteur of his own plans, or about Himself forgetting to provide the necessary means. Nobody can doubt that.

Is 5:4
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God on that one - informing Him of just what He did wrong - sabotaging His own plans or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.

The Calvinist would answer God "the reason they have no such heart is because God has not "given" it to them."

How instructive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Winman
If God CAUSED the angels to rebel, and then punished them for their rebellion, then YES, God would be unjust.

The same goes for the fall of Adam and Eve.... "Faulty wiring"?? "Faulty programming??"" - or free will

Whatever cause you want to assign to the fall of angels I will be more than happy to assign to men (because it is the same - willful sin).

Adam and Eve, the fallen Angels - "whatever the cause" cannot be "God wired them to do it".

Hence, there is no difference in cause or consequence and so why are you not enraged against God for not saving fallen angels, when it is clearly in His power to do so if He merely chose to do so.

God does not save the wicked in the lake of fire because they refuse to believe God and obey. The fallen angels put themselves in the same position long before there was even one wicked person on planet earth.

At EACH STEP of the way God could have stopped the entire sin suffering and loss process - by simply revoking free will for sinless Lucifer, and then if not then - well then for 1/3 of the sinless but soon to be fallen Angels, and then if not then will then for sinless Eve -- and then if not then - well then for sinless ADAM... and then if not then - well then for the Jewish Nation..

"HE came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1.

God has paid a high price FOR NOT revoking free will for either sinless beings or fallen humanity.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

The real question is why would God choose to save His enemies. He did not choose to do so with angels who fell. He could just as easily chose to save the fallen angels but He did not. I don't see anyone charging God with being unjust, heartless, unloving because He did not choose to save any of the fallen angels. Arminians should be outraged that God would be so heartless not to save fallen angels when it is clearly in His power to do so.

Bottom line, "20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Nebuchadnezzar learned this lesson well:

35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Since I do not believe God caused either Adam or Angels to sin, and since I do not believe God "hard wired" Adam to sin then all the objections thus far listed are mute and invalid. Thus you still have the same problem. You can no more object to God not choosing to save some fallen creatures among men, when He is perfectly able to do so, if God chose not to save other fallen creatures among angels, when God is equally able to do so but simply chose not to. According to your logic such a God is not the God you believe in nor would serve if he could save fallen creatures but simply chose not to while choosing to save other fallen creatures. Hence, your problem remains.