The doctrine of Hardening

[BobRyan]

So, in this text:

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.​

Why was the Lord grieved that he had made man? And why did he find favor with Noah? Did God effectually give Noah a new heart making him favorable? If so, why didn't God simply make the people do what he desired them to do so as not to be grieved by them? The answer is RESPONSIBILITY.

Indeed - God is NOT the "cause of His own lament" in Genesis 6 the way Calvinism logically concludes.

Because God "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" and "NOT just the saints".

in Christ,
Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
Where does scripture say this (Rom. 8:7)

Nope, I read it again and it says nothing about mankind hating grace and truth. It says the sinful mind is hostile and can't submit to the law, but nothing is mentioned about grace, gospel, or inability of mankind to respond when confronted with the Holy Spirit wrought truth of God. That is all stuff you impose onto the text in order to support your premise.

That is a not-too-subtle detail that is continually in the blind-spot of the Calvinist POV.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Additionally, I'd like to add:


My conclusion: Hardening seems to be a progress that is propelled or continued by the hearers willful rebellion of revelation (light), right? So, to PRESUME, as I believe you do, that the hearer is born ONLY ABLE to rebel REGARDLESS of the nature and purpose of the revelation (light) is simply unfounded.

For example, the revelation of the law (lists and lists of impossible rules for us to follow) would potentially seem to have a different effect on man than the revelation of grace in the gospel, which is a loving appeal from the father who sent his very son to fulfill all those rules for us.

So, we aren't only addressing the nature of the object being exposed to the LIGHT, but the nature of the LIGHT itself. What PURPOSE does the light have when God sends it?

Law is light, right? But light for what purpose?
Gospel is light, right? But light for what purpose?

See the difference? You seem to presume that because the light of law hardens man, that the light of grace will NECESSARILY have the same effect. But suppose that the nature of grace actually ENABLES responsibility, where as the nature of law doesn't. Instead the nature of law's light only serves to harden and reveal mankind's shortcoming and need of grace. Is that possible? I'm not asking for agreement. I'm just asking you to consider this. Is that POSSIBLY what God is doing?

No need to "suppose it" - because even Calvinists ADMIT that the "DRAWING of man by God" fully ENABLES the choice that depravity disables.

Thus "I will DRAW ALL men unto Me" John 12:32 destroys the Calvinist argument that "The lost have no choice and cannot accept the Gospel".

Even their own dim view of John 12:32 and John 6 is forced to admit that the "supernatural DRAWING of man by God" enables the choice that depravity disables.

It will have the same effect unless efficacious, irresistible grace is given to man by the power of God.

Not at all true -- your point to the salient point in the Calvinist argument and insert it as an "assumption" rather than the key point in dispute to be "tested and proven true".

That is a circular argument in your post.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Apparently you believe Noah was equally evil in his intentions and corruption, but God effectually graced him making him favorable, right? But God grieves all the rest of mankind? Why? Why not just do for them what he did for Noah instead acting upset about it and drowning them? Is God just acting...like putting on a play for us?

God: "Hmmm, I will make the people all think I don't like it this way, when really I designed it too be exactly this way, so I'll pretend to be grieved by all these people but I'll zap this Noah fella and make him more favorable then I'll drown the rest of them. That will show them!"

That doesn't teach responsibility. That teaches fatalism, hopelessness, despair and makes God deceptive at best.

Because the only reason why Noah was not the same condition is the grace of God.

But the scripture forgot to mention it in this context? The grace (provision through an Ark, etc) came after God found favor, not before.

man's responsbility freely forfeited as mankind consisted and existed in one man and chose to sin thus falling into a state of inability.

Again, it could only be by God's design that men become disabled by the fall. That doesn't happen by accident. That's like the parent who beats his kid to death saying, "I was his fault for disobeying," as if the parent had no say in the level of punishment he gave.

 

[The Biblicist]

Apparently you believe Noah was equally evil in his intentions and corruption, but God effectually graced him making him favorable, right?

Even a cursory study of the book of Genesis reveals one of its major themes is election.

1. God chose Abel over Cain
2. God chose Noah and his family over the rest of humanity to preserve
3. God chose Abraham over the rest of humanity
4. God chose Isaac over Ishmael
5. God chose Jacob over Esau
6. God chose Joseph over the other brethen
7. God chose Ephraim over Mannesseh
8. God chose Israel over other nations.

In every case grace was the grounds for His choice as His grace made the difference. Yes, the grace of God made Noah different than the rest of the world - I am what I am by the grace of God - by grace are ye saved and so, no, he did not deserve God's favor any more than the rest.

But God grieves all the rest of mankind? Why? Why not just do for them what he did for Noah instead acting upset about it and drowning them? Is God just acting...like putting on a play for us?

I will give you Paul's answer to that same exact question in response to God's right to have mercy on whom He will and harden whom He will:

17 For the scripture said to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
19 You will say then to me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?
20 No but, O man, who are you that reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
21 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared to glory,

Verse 19 is an objection to verses 15-18 and claims that this makes ROBOTS of people and denies free will because if God can do what He wills with people than WHO CAN RESIST HIS WILL = robots. Hence, verse 19 provides a further objection - if God does what he wants with us then why did he even create us in the first place.

Now, Who is the Calvinist and who is the Arminian here? Paul or the objector? Isn't your very objections that of the objector in Romans 9?

 

[Skandelon]

so, no, he did not deserve God's favor any more than the rest.

I addressed this misunderstanding of our system in another post...please heed what I wrote because it is vital to correct understanding and thus representation of what we actually believe.

I will give you Paul's answer to that same exact question in response to God's right to have mercy on whom He will and harden whom He will:

17 For the scripture said to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
19 You will say then to me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?
20 No but, O man, who are you that reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
21 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared to glory,

Verse 19 is an objection to verses 15-18 and claims that this makes ROBOTS of people and denies free will because if God can do what He wills with people than WHO CAN RESIST HIS WILL = robots. Hence, verse 19 provides a further objection - if God does what he wants with us then why did he even create us in the first place.

Now, Who is the Calvinist and who is the Arminian here? Paul or the objector? Isn't your very objections that of the objector in Romans 9?

Context. It is not about Calvinism versus Arminianism, its about Jew (apostles and hardened/cut off/stumbling ones) and Gentiles (those being grafted in - brought the gospel light). It's only when you read this from a hyper-individualize perspective and ignore the context of Romans 8-11 that a "Calvinistic" rendering can be supported. The same individuals hardened in this context were being patiently pursued by God for a very long time (Rm 10:21), and though they are currently stumbling, they have not stumbled beyond recovery, and though they are currently blinded and sent a spirit of stupor, they may be provoked to envy by Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and saved. And though they are currently 'cut off' they can leave their unbelief and be 'grafted back in.' That is clearly laid out in Romans 11.

 

[The Biblicist]

I addressed this misunderstanding of our system in another post...please heed what I wrote because it is vital to correct understanding and thus representation of what we actually believe.



Context. It is not about Calvinism versus Arminianism, its about Jew (apostles and hardened/cut off/stumbling ones) and Gentiles (those being grafted in - brought the gospel light). It's only when you read this from a hyper-individualize perspective and ignore the context of Romans 8-11 that a "Calvinistic" rendering can be supported. The same individuals hardened in this context were being patiently pursued by God for a very long time (Rm 10:21), and though they are currently stumbling, they have not stumbled beyond recovery, and though they are currently blinded and sent a spirit of stupor, they may be provoked to envy by Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and saved. And though they are currently 'cut off' they can leave their unbelief and be 'grafted back in.' That is clearly laid out in Romans 11.

How was Esau hardened before birth, before even doing anything good or evil?

How does that explain God raising Pharoah FOR THE PURPOSE to harden him?

Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you,

Sounds to me God had his purpose all determined before Pharoah became hardened or even appeared on the scene.

How was the vessel's future already determned while still on the potter's wheel as hardening and salvation could only come later, yet this was determined already by the Potter on the wheel for its designed use in life.

How was Ishmael already hardened so that God would choose Isaac? How was Isaac already the chosen child BEFORE BIRTH?

Your interpetation falls flat as you are trying to read Romans 11 back into Romans 9 which deals with an entirely different subject. Romans 11 deals with nations but Romans 9 deals with INDIVIDUAL's like "Isaac" and "Esau" and "Jacob" and "Pharoah" and "Abraham" and "Rebecca" and etc.

However, can you HONESTLY deny that the very assertions made by Paul are the very assertions of Calvinists and the objections given by Paul are the EXACT objections to Calvinism not to your interpretative theory?

 

[Skandelon]

How was Esau hardened before birth, before even doing anything good or evil?

Who ever said Esau was hardened before birth?

How does that explain God raising Pharoah FOR THE PURPOSE to harden him?

Judicial hardening is NOT God's causing people to sin (surely one who is denying the divine design of total inability, wouldn't deny this). Judicial hardening is God using someone who is already in rebellion to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through them. God is merely blinding the agent from the obviously revealed truth so that the person will not be convinced and change his course.

This is what Jesus is doing to the Jewish leaders by speaking in parables. He is hardening/blinding them in their rebellion so as to accomplish the Passover on the cross, in the same way God blinded Pharaoh to accomplish the first passover.

Sounds to me God had his purpose all determined before Pharoah became hardened or even appeared on the scene.

Well sure He did. Who denies that? God's purposes are redemptive and glorifying, not condemning.

How was the vessel's future already determned while still on the potter's wheel as hardening and salvation could only come later, yet this was determined already by the Potter on the wheel for its designed use in life.

It doesn't say hardening and salvation. It says, 'has mercy or hardens.' And the FACT that some shown mercy are still condemned and some hardened are saved, proves your dichotomy is false. He is clearly talking about showing mercy to the Gentiles and cutting off Israel, with the exception of the remnant of Israel set apart for the noble purpose of carrying the message to the world!

Your interpetation falls flat as you are trying to read Romans 11 back into Romans 9 which deals with an entirely different subject.

Oh wow...no way!!! Are you kidding?

Romans 11 deals with nations but Romans 9 deals with INDIVIDUAL's

Wow. I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion when looking at the entire context together as it all flows together in unison. You don't have to change your hermetical approach right in the middle to 'make it fit.'

like "Isaac" and "Esau" and "Jacob" and "Pharoah"

All representative of nations...but I don't deny that individuals are in view IN BOTH chapter, only you have to change your approach where as mine is consistently the same.

 

[The Biblicist]

Who ever said Esau was hardened before birth?

Your interpretation simply does not fit Romans 9:6-24. This context is about INDIVIDUALS not nations. It is about God's "purpose of grace according to election" in regard the elect or those chosen like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and vessels of mercy and it is God's purpose of judgement for the non-elect like Ishmael, Esau, Pharoah and vessels fitted to destruction.

Your concept of judicial hardening contradicts the text as both before and after the example of hardening Paul repeats that God has mercy on whom he will and hardeneth without conditioning it on anything but His own will. In fact, he explicitly states that it was for the purpose of demonstrating His power expressed in the ten plagues that raise up Pharoah. In other words, his design behind raising up Pharoah was to harden him to display his power and thus he hardeneth "WHOM HE WILL".

That is what you don't like about Calvinism because it asserts that very principle! And your response to that very principle is exactly the objection that Paul anticipates - nobody can resist God's will of purpose therefore that makes all men robots without free will and if that is then why even bother creating man (vv. 18-20).

Look, it does not take a genius to see what Paul is clearly arguing and what the objector is clearly objecting to! Your interpretation is pure fairy land imagination.

 

[Skandelon]

Your interpretation simply does not fit Romans 9:6-24.

It doesn't fit the Calvinistic system imposed onto this text and thus the lenses with which you read it.

This context is about INDIVIDUALS not nations.

The question is normally asked, "Is this corporate or individual?" Some insist this must be corporate only, or like you above, its about individuals only.

I insist it is both. There are individual and corporate elements here. You cannot, for instance, have a corporate unless there is the individual (Jacob and Esau is the prime example).

Those who wish for only a corporate rendering miss the obvious, that the Bible uses the individual to demonstrate the corporate, but the opposite it true as well!!!

Nations are made up of individuals. I just wish Calvinists would consistently carry this understanding into chapters 10 and 11 when Paul goes on to explain how the individuals in Israel who are being temporarily hardened haven't "stumbled beyond recovery" (vs. 11) and may be provoke to envy and saved (vs. 14) and may be grafted back into the vine if they leave their unbelief (vs. 23-26), thus proving that the individuals spoken of as being hardened in Romans 9 can't be the non-elect reprobates born without hope of ever being saved as Calvinism presumes...but instead is the judicially hardened Jew who God temporarily cut off from the vine (hardened in his rebellious condition) so as to accomplish the crucifixion and ingraft the Gentiles.

God's purpose of judgement for the non-elect

"10:21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Where does this verse fit in your 'individual' only approach?

Or if you are bound by chapter and verse divisions and have to remain in Romans 9, how about this SUMMARY of the entire chapter:

"

Rom 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."​

 

[The Biblicist]

The question is normally asked, "Is this corporate or individual?" Some insist this must be corporate only, or like you above, its about individuals only.

I insist it is both.

I sectioned out that part of Romans 9 that deals with individuals (Rom. 9:6-24).

However, Romans 9:1-5 has the nation of Israel in view in direct relationship to the promises given Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The question in view arises from Romans 8:28-39 where God's purpose for salvation of the elect will be effectual. Israel is God's elect nation and if Romans 8:28-39 is true in regard to God's elect then why has Elect Israel rejected Christ and why has God rejected Israel. Does this not deny that God's purpose behind the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be accomplished. If you do not understand this contextual backdrop you cannot possibly interpret Romans 9-11 correctly.

Second, the antipated objections do not come from hardened lost Jews as you READ INTO this context. He is directly addressing the assembly at Rome and those actually hearing this epistle being publicly read in the assembly and the "you" in the objections are born again baptized church members.

 

[Skandelon]

I'll allow my comment on Rom 9 in the other thread suffice...