Pharaoh and the Egyptians

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The problem is that you are thinking too linearly. Look at God as being outside of time, and you will be able to see how man can be truly completely free, yet God can have divine foreknowledge. God is still omnipotent in that He is the one who set the rules in motion.

First, where is this revelation of yours in Scripture? Second, since we live in time, what difference does it make? He still cannot change his mind and by your definition, that takes away his freedom.

As I have said however, I do believe that man is truly free and that God has divine foreknowledge. Those things do not conflict for me but I can't see how you reconcile them without becoming a open theist.

 

[romanbear]

Hi Npetreley;

A few quotes from you;
_________________________________________________________________
1.
God is love, He doesn't "choose" to love. Does that mean it's not real if He loves us?
_________________________________________________________________
Actually God does choose to love us. God is God and is under no restrictions other than the ones He imposes on Him self.He is the highest authority. Who's going to discipline God?.God can do what ever He likes. Even though you are right ,"He is love", but He can also Hate.

___________________________________________________________________
2.
If God wants to make me love Him -- and love my brothers and sisters in the Lord -- I say bring it on, baby!
___________________________________________________________________

If God wants to makes us do anything what can we say.I certainly wouldn't want to talk back to my Father.It's just that if it isn't in God's word concerning our relationship with God then it isn't so.I realize that some believe they can interpret scriptures for them selves and others like the priest in the Catholic Church but, I can read and understand scriptures for my self.Just like Martin Luther if it doesn't appear in scripture the way someone says that it is, then what they are saying is not so.
Romanbear

Peace

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Hi Npetreley;

A few quotes from you;
_________________________________________________________________
1.
God is love, He doesn't "choose" to love. Does that mean it's not real if He loves us?
_________________________________________________________________
Actually God does choose to love us. God is God and is under no restrictions other than the ones He imposes on Him self.

That's not strictly true. God cannot lie. It isn't that He chooses not to lie, but that it is impossible for God to lie because that would create a contradiction, just as it would be an impossible paradox for God to create a boulder so large the even He could not lift it. In that sense (and this is just my opinion), God loves because He is love. He hates sin because He is righteous and just, not because He chooses to hate sin.

Originally posted by romanbear:

If God wants to makes us do anything what can we say.I certainly wouldn't want to talk back to my Father.It's just that if it isn't in God's word concerning our relationship with God then it isn't so.I realize that some believe they can interpret scriptures for them selves and others like the priest in the Catholic Church but, I can read and understand scriptures for my self.Just like Martin Luther if it doesn't appear in scripture the way someone says that it is, then what they are saying is not so.
Romanbear

Peace

Martin Luther, eh? Ain't he the one who wrote "Bondage of the Will"? Someone once said that Calvinism is scarcely a footnote to Luther's work on the subject of free will (or the lack thereof).

 

[Hardsheller]

I sure wish someone would show me how and when John the Baptist exercised his free will in becoming John the Baptist!

Please start with him jumping in his mother's womb when Mary spoke to his mother Elizabeth.

[ December 03, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Hardsheller ]

 

[BobRyan]

The point that "sin is sin" does not address the question raised.

Either Satan is working "With God" to get the egyptians to "hate the Hebrews" as well as "God being the one BEHIND the Hatred" or Satan is working against God.

By placing God as the one "behind the hatred of the Egyptians toward the Hebrews" - God and Satan are placed as "partners" in inspiring that "hatred".

That is obviously the "problem" with the speculation that our God of Love is "behind the hatred".

In direct opposition to that view of God - the Arminian model predicts that God loves you and your child EVEN if that child happens to end up being among the "many" of Matt 7..

The Arminian model proposes the following

- in the Arminian view of the future - where you go to heaven as one of the "FEW" and find that your precious child was one of the "MANY" of Matt 7 - we have the following scenario that you might "expect" if the doctrines of Grace as seen in the Arminian teachings are true...

When you go to the Lord and cry out "Oh my great God and Savior - couldn't you have done Something to spare my precious daughter from the fires of the 2nd death?"

By the doctrines of grace as taught in the Arminian model - ... God may well reply

"Why YES my child I loved them with an infinite love as Their tender Heavenly Father JUST as I loved you. I drew them to my heart of infinite love JUST as I drew you. I sent WAVE after WAVE of invitation, heart wrenching plea after plea - BUT In all this I did not force myself on them - JUST as I did not force myself on YOU.

THough I bled and DIED for them - and YES I could have FORCE both YOU and your child - but instead I Sovereignly Chose to Give you BOTH the ABILITY to see the light, to CHOOSE life or to CHOOSE your own selfish will.

And when you CHOSE against me - I CAME back with even stronger ties of love and compassion - ENABLING your choice of LIFE JUST as I did with your precious child.

And in the end - you ACCEPTED and your precious child - OUR precious child - MY precious child chose "NO".

My heart of infinte love is broken over that - but I also Sovereignly CHOOSE to enable my children to CHOOSE.

Of course the Calvinist may say of the Arminian God that we see pictured here "OH how TERRIBLE! How AWFUL" as some have said of the picture that Calvinism paints of God. -- But I know that "not many" will do so - even among Calvinists because the comparison is obvious - blatant and clear.

Not exactly the view of "God who is behind the hatred of the Egyptians".

The text does not tell us that God "inspired hate" but that the message of God - the ministry of God through Moses toward the Egyptians - telling them to let the Hebrews go - was rejected and they hardened their heart - in the same way that God speaks of the Hebrews themselves as being stiff necked in Hebrews 3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

First, where is this revelation of yours in Scripture? Second, since we live in time, what difference does it make? He still cannot change his mind and by your definition, that takes away his freedom.

The fact that you are still insisting on inability to change one's mind shows that as Scott says, you are thinking too linearly (i.e. confounding time with God's eternal realm and treating it all as the same). On one hand you insist that sin is purely "free-willed", and God does not make them sin, but then if Pharaoh couldn't change his mind because of God's foreknowledge or predetermination, (in order for God to be "in control" of it) then he was basically pre-programmed.
The Bible doesn't directly say it, but obviously the difference between the two realms is where the mystery lies. (The question is where did scripture ask Augustine and others to try to bridge the two realms. Augustine had been criticized as too rationalistic by the Cappadocian fathers and others, and this caused a lot of doctrinal problems in the Western church).
If you would let go of this total inability of man, then "God's sovereignty and man's responsibility" would be a point of agreement.

[ December 04, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The fact that you are still insisting on inability to change one's mind shows that as Scott says, you are thinking too linearly

The fact that Scripture insists on this inability means that I am thinking biblically. I cannot find your 'linear' distinction in Scripture and you agree with me. You just write it up to mystery. I am not comfortable hiding direct revelation behind mystery.

If you would let go of this total inability of man, then "God's sovereignty and man's responsibility" would be a point of agreement.

They are a point of agreement in my belief. I have no problem with either one. I am questioning the consistency of claiming that man has a totally free will while at the same time asserting that he cannot change his mind. That is a contradiction that is easily explained by biblical resolution. I am not the one with the difficulty.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The point that "sin is sin" does not address the question raised.

Are you denying that sin is sin?

Either Satan is working "With God" to get the egyptians to "hate the Hebrews" as well as "God being the one BEHIND the Hatred" or Satan is working against God.

Again, I direct you to the David's numbering of the people that clearly and biblically answers the problem you can't understand. This question is addressed in Scripture. Don't look to others for answers when it is there.

we have the following scenario that you might "expect" if the doctrines of Grace as seen in the Arminian teachings are true...

Your following model is ridiculous in that it is unbiblicaly. To quote the Holy Spirit, Who are you go question God? You seem to ignore those passages that show you to be wrong or that address your questioning of God. That is simply wrong. Put your analogies and desires aside and get back to Scripture.

The Bible says that "God turned their hearts." Are you denying that?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I am not comfortable hiding direct revelation behind mystery.

And all this time I thought that Calvinist's called the existence of sin in spite of God's being the first cause of all things an antinomy. Who knew?

I am questioning the consistency of claiming that man has a totally free will while at the same time asserting that he cannot change his mind.

Who is asserting that he cannot change his mind. If God sees the end from the beginning (As He himself says that He is the "beginning and the end" and that he is timeless - isn't that Scriptural support?) then man can change his mind as much as he wants. God can look back in time, seeing what his free decision is, and then know it from the beginning.

That is a contradiction that is easily explained by biblical resolution. I am not the one with the difficulty.

I have no difficulty with it at all, in spite of your saying I do.

 

[Eric B]

The fact that Scripture insists on this inability means that I am thinking biblically.

Scripture does not say "they could not change their minds". That is a deduction based on the reading of a particular doctrine into scripture. (Including the passages about "blinding" and "calling" which would be the closest things, but still could be argued as to who was blinded and why--individuals vs. groups; who was "called"--all or only some; unconditional eternal reprobation of "hardened" individuals, etc.)

I cannot find your 'linear' distinction in Scripture and you agree with me. You just write it up to mystery. I am not comfortable hiding direct revelation behind mystery.

They are a point of agreement in my belief. I have no problem with either one.

What I meant was they (the whole paradox, not the to polarities by themselves) would be a point of agreement to both of us (both camps). What I was saying is that if we know where to place the mystery, and what is going beyond that into speculation, then the two positions would be the same. And you and every other Calvinist do ultimately write it up to mystery (as in the frequent "who are you to question God" statement, which does not apply if the doctrine we are questioning is not really from God).

I am questioning the consistency of claiming that man has a totally free will while at the same time asserting that he cannot change his mind. That is a contradiction that is easily explained by biblical resolution. I am not the one with the difficulty.

If I read correctly other people's statements, I don't think any of us "asserted" man could not change his mind. It's you who have been trying to force foreknowledge to that point, putting that in our mouths, and then claiming we have the "difficulty". (Thus erecting a straw man and knocking it down). This is what Scott and I were rejecting by saying that that assumes a linear continuity between our realm and God's.

[ December 05, 2002, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Pete Richert]

I think this is way off corse. Whether or not Pharaoh had no choice for his own salvation or not, I do believe God hardened his heart with regard to the slaves. We are arguing over whether forknowledge equates to loss of freedom but I have to ask, for those who think it was simply forknowledge, is that anywhere implied in the biblical text? Let me ask again, is there anywhere we it doesn't say "I will harden his heart" or do you believe that the forknowledge is simply implied given the revelation of the rest of scripture?