Perhaps this wasn't the best text for this post, though it was fun to discuss. The more I look at it, Acts 4:23-31 and the saints' prayer for boldness might have been more relevant for the discussion topic of this post. I think I got us on a long tangent that wasn't exactly in keeping with Brad's main thrust. May be another time we can look at that prayer, or Isaiah's description of the Assyrian invasion of Israel and Judah in Isaiah 10 and Isaiah 36-38 (specifically Isaiah 37:26-39). I do hope that people will look and see the ideas and reasons why Calvinists and non-Calvinists (there are so many different labels in this group) believe what they believe and begin to think about the issues themselves through prayerful study.

Hank,
I do see the italicized text. I commented on it. I have no problem with God saying before hand that he's going to harden Ph.'s heart. He knew before hand that he would have to/was going to, and therefore, when it happened it happened according to what the Lord had foretold. This is not a problem for my position. But I don't see how this implicates God in some kind of determinative scheme. Saying something is going to happen beforehand is not the same thing as determining behavior.

Furthermore, I did a simple study on this text. I'll elaborate on those later if we continue this discussion.

Your not dealing with the italicized parts of the text. Go back up to my previous comment. What you are commenting on is "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and "God hardened Pharaoh's heart." And if that was all that was there indeed I would not read the Exodus account the way I do. But that isn't all that is there. In all but two of the hardening cases, the redactor/author puts the following phrase, "as the LORD had said" to explain that the hardening occurred as Yahweh told Moses it would. It is that phrase that you are not commenting on, "as the LORD had said." You are probably reading over it and not seeing it, as I did for many years. You have to really pay attention to find it, but it is almost always there when Pharaoh's heart is hardened. If your not seeing that phrase, in which I am arguing that it links back to Exodus 4:21 and 7:1-3, then I think we should just allow Brad to continue on with his excellent posts. I have enjoyed the exchange and it really helps those who are not familiar with the debate/discussion about the issues of the sovereignty of God and how man's responsibility and freedom of volition are viewed with in the church (although not every possible view was seen here I do recognize). If you do end up seeing the phrase in the text that I am pointing to, then I would be happy to continue to discuss the passage and issue.

Hank, thanks for your patience. I think I may have to ask for more of it because as I read through what you want me to reflect on, I think to myself that I have already answered those quesitons.

God knew that Ph.'s heart had gone past the point of repentance.

So, before any of the events, (even while Moses was still in Midian) God planned to use Ph.'s wicked heart to His own end - that is, the redemption of Israel and the proclamation of His name throughout the nations. Though Moses didn't know Ph.'s heart, God did, and God told Moses what would happen and God planned for the fact that he knew Ph. would not repent.

So, yes, God did plan on hardening Ph.'s heart. But this is because he knew Ph.'s heart 1. was already hardened, and 2. that he would continue to harden his heart.

Again, at the risk of being repetitive, this preserves Ph.'s freedom, God's foreknowledge and sovereignty, and does not in any way implicate God in Ph.'s sin. He simply used what was already in Ph.'s heart - even before God hardens Ph.'s heart, the narrative does not paint a picture of Ph. having a heart that we expect will do anything other than what he does - reject the signs of God and continue to oppress Israel.

God plans to harden Ph.'s heart 'so that' he might display his name among the nations. That 'so that' is the purpose. Ph.'s heart was already hard, but God gives purpose to that hardness, now. Whereas before the hard heart only brought condemnation on Ph. and Egypt (by their own free choices), now God uses the hard heart to accomplish something on a international scale.

Also, I would point to the connection between the plagues and Pharoah's heart being hardened. Calamity is often used in scripture as a catalyst for repentance. The redactors of this document are struggling with why Ph. doesn't repent. For the first 5 plagues he hardens his own heart, spurning God's opportunities for repentance (and God knew he would do this). Then in the last plagues, God hardens Ph.'s heart to the specific end, but still in a manner which works perfectly with what Ph. already had in his heart. The plagues were for repentance, not for destruction (else why would God have needed to send so many of them on him?). God desired repentance, and gave Ph. ample and fair opportunity, but he knew before hand that Ph. would not - which explains his conversation with Moses at Midian.

So, I guess I'm not clear as to why this answer isn't jiving. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not so arrogant as to assume you should just change your mind (Indeed, I would be disappointed if you did so easily), but I guess I'm wondering why it appears to you I haven't dealt with the texts you've put before me.

Sorry if it appears I'm just running in circles. I'll try to keep working through this with you if you like.
Tom

JR,
Thanks for your input. I would agree that God created us to know him and to enjoy him forever. I am a Christian Hedonist, after all (think John Piper's version). I will say that Travis' statement about this is what we have does have more merit than what you are giving, though I see how it isn't satisfactory. We can ask the question of why God didn't create a universe without evil and sin and suffering but he didn't and so we do need to wrestle with what the universe is, under the curse of sin. But God hates this cursed universe precisely because of that sin. And I am trying to understand the reason why he allowed it. The scenario I put forth cannot be demonstrated by the Bible to be the reason behind the madness of our universe. I just read the Bible and see that God has a purpose and that he works all things out according to that purpose. That this universe is unfolding according to that purpose and plan of God (cf Isaiah 46:9-11; Ephesians 1:11-12).

Your concluding statement in the final paragraph does not get at my intention, but shows why I am merely speculating and not claiming absolute biblical reality here. I think you should think in terms of Luke 13:1-5 and the encounter of Jesus with the Jews where they ask Jesus about the Tower that fell on the people and killed them and Pilate's slaughter of the Jews. Jesus told them that instead of claiming the injustice of something like that misses the whole reason why they happened. They really need to see that they themselves are no less deserving of the fate that they received. They should have been slaughtered or the tower should have fallen on them. They should repent and seek God's mercy so that they do not end up in such a situation. As for the example of the child being molested...I would probably look at that in light of John 9 and the blind man healed from birth. The man was born blind--a terrible affliction (though it is not the same kind of evil as being molested)--so that Jesus could heal his blindness. That was the purpose to being born without sight, to know the healing power of Jesus Christ. Again, I am only trying to make sense of the world in light of the Scripture.

I am not advocating a dualism, in this scenario, I am saying that sin exists to fully reveal to us the full character of God. There are many texts (i.e. Romans 9:22) that state that God is a God who desires to show wrath. If these texts are true, then how can God show wrath with out something to be the object of his wrath? I am not saying that God has a need that he is meeting, the very divine name of God, Yahweh, means that God is self-existing and has no needs. But Paul uses the present participle θέλων which indicates desire. It is God's desire to show wrath and power as much as it is his desire to show mercy (cf. Romans 9:23 where
<div id="word_87317" class="word"> καὶ ἵνα links the verse back to θέλων of 9:22).

This also is my trying to understand other texts where God is said to have created all things and nothing has come into being that God did not create. If God did not create sin, then where did it come from? Is sin the result of a choice, namely the one in the garden to eat of the fruit? Did not God give that choice to man? These are just many of the issues that I have tried to grapple for several years, since I was at SBU and lived in Maupin Hall (Room 318 was the best ever!).

Thanks for being the wall to really bounce this off of. I truly appreciate it.
</div>

Hank,

Haha no worries I don't think you're a heretic.  That was just my gut reaction.

I think if we go with determinism, we have a bigger problem - we are saying that God not only tolerates evil (OTh/A), he caused it.  And caused it because there is no better way to demonstrate LOVE than by inventing and implementing the opposite of LOVE.

Now, I am familiar with the 'we can't know something unless we're without it' argument - light needs darkness, love needs hate, etc.  BUT, this is dualism.  The whole point of scripture, so far as i read it (and that's worth exactly as little as it sounds :) is that God does not desire Sin.  Death and Sin and Evil are anathama to God.   If God is absolutely sovereign, then can't God create a universe in which we don't have to know something by first embracing its opposite?

The response I've heard most often to this is something like what Travis said in an earlier thread recently (or perhaps this one) - "Apparently not, because this is what's here".  Alternately, I've heard the appeal to mystery, which really amounts to the same thing.  The Bible says this about God, we don't like it, but we can't explain it, so we're just going to believe two contradictory ideas and claim that it'll all come out in the wash.

I can't abide that.  I think God created us to know God.  That God gave us the capacity to understand God.  Are God's ways above ours?  Sure.  But we're still in God's image.  I  think this is where the ant:person :: person:God analogy breaks down.  We did not create ants specifically to have a relationship with them.  But that IS why God created us; we are God's crown jewel of creation.

What galls me about the scenario that you've suggested is its underlying eliteism (which indeed is much of my problem with Calvinism at large).  You are claiming that God allows Evil to happen to some in order to display God's love to others.  So (to borrow an example from Tom)... a child is molested so that I can watch God's wrath be meted out on the molester, and therefore know how much God loves me.

This seems wrong to me.

JR,
Let me make a clarification because I do believe that we can know God and his love without sin. How about if I add the phrase "more fully" or "most completely"? I did not say that God is only known through sin, but because of sin, we know what God's wrath and holiness and righteousness looks like. Because of sin, we also understand God's love and mercy and grace. Could our knowledge of God, in this life/age/world, as mortals, as fully as we do if there was not sin? Just take Revelation. John shows us a Jesus who comes back and destroys the beast, the false prophet, and the dragon and then confines them and all whose names were not written in the Lambs' book of Life from before the foundation of the world into the lake of sulfur. Then God makes his dwelling and reorders, recreates, restores (however you view what happens when that city descends) this world, Sin/Evil/Death have left the picture and now because we do not have the barrier, we know God. Now we know what life is like without those things, and the joy that it will bring to our souls. But what image have the saints passed through to get to that city: God's judgment of humanity. They will also have known God as the Holy One whose eyes are too pure to behold evil. They will see it and experience that holiness and see his wrath executed against sin and evil. And seeing what they were spared by God's love and grace and mercy and wisdom and the wrath averting death of Christ that bought for them the righteousness and holiness required by God to enter into that heavenly city, they will know the love/mercy/grace over and against the holiness/wrath/justice-righteousness of God. Now having seen God exercising the full extent of who he is, we know God truly.

I say that because I have a pastor's heart and one problem I have with the OTh and Arminian/Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian positions is that there is no reason no purpose for suffering and for evil in the world. It is there. Man and Satan screwed up and it came. But why isn't it gone? Why has God allow it to come into the picture and remain? Why isn't it gone, why doesn't he just simply remove it? People struggle with those questions every day and I am trying to give them some way to understand the problem of the existence of evil/sin/death/suffering. I figured your reaction would be that I am a heretic--much like my reaction to OTh. I appreciate your response to my question though, and that you did not revert to any kind of name calling.

Hank,

Absolutely I believe that we can know God and God's love apart from Sin and Evil.  If not, we are claiming that God designed something in his/her image that requires Sin/Evil to know its creator.

In addition to my gut, instinctual reaction against this as heretical - how can we claim that God is known only through Sin?? - i would point you to the Genesis 1-2 myths.  Here God creates a Sinless/Evil-free world.  And calls it Very Good.  And God's creatures know God w/o the paradigm of Sin/Evil through which to view God.  Also, the Revelation paints a similar picture of the Endgame in ch. 21-22 - We know God most fully when Sin/Evil/Death no longer exist in this world.

Allow me to cite to you some texts from Exodus and hopefully you will see the portion that I am hoping to get your input on.

Exodus 4:21, "And the LORD said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.'" This is repeated in Exodus 7:1-3. But in this verse Yahweh is promising to harden Pharaoh's heart so that when Moses demands the release of the Hebrews (as commanded by God), Pharaoh will not let them go.

Exodus 8:15 after the next encounter of Moses and Pharaoh says, "But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he [Pharaoh] hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the Lord had said." This text says that Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not release the Hebrews. But it is the end of the verse that I am asking about, "as the LORD had said." How does that commentary on Pharaoh's hardening relate to what God has said earlier. Exodus 4:21, while Moses was in Midian (which is key because Moses hasn't even left for Midian and thus Yahweh had already determined that this sin of hardening would occur before Moses appeared before Pharaoh), states that God promised to harden Pharaoh's heart. This is where I take the text to say that God was working in someway, without being unrighteous and without violating Pharaoh's will, to harden Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh hardened his own heart and refused to release the Hebrews just as Yahweh promised he wouldn't. But that promise said that Yahweh would harden Pharaoh's heart. I hope that this might clarify what I am getting at.

Okay, a few more thoughts as I’ve been thinking about this all morning.

Hank, you say that even though the text says that Ph.s hardens his own heart that God was working behind the scenes. I understand this stance coming from a Ref. position – you are forced to such a statement, justifiably. However, no one text actually says that. No ‘Ph. hardened his own heart’ text actually says that God is working behind the scenes in a determinative sense to harden Ph.’s heart. In the first 5 texts, Ph. hardens his own heart, then God hardens it after that to a particular end – a redemptive end for Israel. There is no text which indicates both are happening at the same time by the determination of God. There is no sense in which any text indicates that Ph.'s hardening of his own heart is the work of God - otherwise, why would the text not just continue that language throughout the narrative? Instead it decidedly shifts from one to the other - indicating that one is the work of the human, the other is the work of God which comes about as a result of the work of the human, and God uses to display his love and power. This seems to me to be the flow of the text.

I'm busy at this moment and shouldn't really be writing, so if you need me to delineate any of this a little more later, I will. I don't want to side-step your questions. If you don't think I've dealt with the text fairly, point it out, and I'd be happy to explain myself.

Man, Hank, you should go to bed ealier!

Okay, here are my thoughts....

God intimately knows his creations - espeically humans. God, therefore, has intimate knowledge of Ph. and knows Ph. better than Ph. knows himself.
God, then, knows that Ph. will not repent b/c he had already hardened his own heart and various ways.
God, then, gives him over to his own desires (by hardening Ph.'s heart) in order to display his love and wrath.

Now,
God is the God of the possible. But he knows, before any of this takes place, that Ph.'s heart had already gone so wicked that he would not, in fact, choose to repent. Like a pawn that has gone one space too far - he simply does not have the ability to go back a space! He has made too many sinful choices and has taken himself away from his ability to repent. God knows this before anything takes place. So, when Ph.'s heart is hardened, it is in accordance with what God had said - b/c God knew all the possibilities and knew that none of those possibilities invovled Ph.'s repentance.

This take neither violates Ph.'s will, implicates God in any way, nor disregards the fact that God said he would harden Ph.'s heart prior to any of the events. And again, I think the fact that it is not until the 6th plague that God hardens Ph.'s heart (Ph. having done so himself 5 prior times) supports that God is only acting in accordance with what Ph. already desired. Now God chooses to uses that desire to His own ends.

Tom,
It is nearly 10:00 PM and I am typing with my eyes slivered open--my day starts at 2:30 am. I have yet to see you comment on the redactor/author's commentary on the hardening's of Pharaoh with the words "as the Lord had said" or "as the Lord spoke through Moses." This links Pharaoh's hardening back to God's decrees in Exodus 4:21 and Exodus 7:1-3 and again in Exodus 14:4-5. This is why I am saying that even though the text says that Pharaoh hardens his own heart, it is still God working behind the scenes to bring about Pharaoh's hardening (how he does it is mere philosophical speculation, but I cannot say that God was not behind Pharaoh's hardening based upon the Exodus account). I would really like to see how you interact with this part of the narrative. And like you, I am really enjoying this discussion (Without getting into it, I really think Exodus 9:16, and especially its place in Romans 9:14-23, is a clue as to why God would allow the fall to happen; the reality and existence of sin in the world gives God the occasion to demonstrate his wrath and love and wisdom and mercy and holiness and grace and justice and faithfulness in a way that he could not if there were no sin--I know that comment will get some jaws to hit the floor but think about it in light of Romans 9:22-23 and you'll see how I might come to that hypothesis).

JR,
I might write up a post in the next few days over here that articulates this view more fully. I do have a question for you, it goes along with the parenthetical statement I made that probably made your jaw drop (and many other author's here at this site) and hit the floor (despite the fact that I got it from Jonathan Edwards). Do you think that we could know the love of God as we do apart from the presence of sin in the world and God's hatred of it and those who practice it? I am curious as to how you would answer this question.

Hank,

I think I understand what you say you believe (and in fact, if I am understanding you rightly, largely agree with you).  But that is emphatically NOT the orthodox Calvinist position as articulated by its major leaders today, at least as it's been articulated to and by popular Calvinists.

Now, I will be the first person to cheer you on if you want to challenge the traditional understanding of a doctrine from within the position.

Am I wrong?  Do I misunderstand how Calvinists understand and communicate the doctrine of OS?  What you're communicating above is much closer to the Catholic/mainline understanding of OS.

P.S. If I'm being repetitive, I'm sorry. Sometimes I'm under the impression that the more I say something, the it should be understood.....drives my wife crazy!

It appears our passive/active discussion may have to take an ethical/philosophical bend to be solved. But, in the end, I think JR is mostly right when he says we see the texts the way we do for reasons which may have little to do with the text.

Thanks Hank, I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion and am being challenged. I hope you are too.

There is much to discuss, and I feel like I could write on your post for a long time. Alas, I will only deal with the immediate passage we are discussing. (hope that's okay :))

Just to provide a contextual framework for our discussion...

First, and quite interestingly, there are 10 references to God hardening Ph.'s heart, and 10 references to Ph. hardening his own heart. (just thought that was cool).

Also, just as another note on these passages - for the first 5 plagues, Ph. hardens his own heart. God does not harden Ph.'s heart until the 6th plague. In other words, if my assessment that passive allowance is different than active determination, this further supports my reading.

Now, to the question at hand...

God hardened Ph.'s heart - I'm not trying to avoid that. But I'm saying that God did not go against Ph.'s will, and he did not determine that Ph. should do something that wasn't already in Ph.'s heart. Ph. wasn't going to let those people go with or without God's hardening. The hardening is an indication to Moses that God understands and will use Ph.'s hardened heart to rescue his children. God simply uses what was already in this man's (nations) heart to save His people. Was he active in this? Yes! But he did not determine something that was not already determined by the condition of Ph.'s heart! This 'determination' was in line with the desires of the free creature.

Also, passive allowance is very different than active determination. In passive allowance God does not override the will. God is not obligated to save anyone from their sins, but he chooses to allow us to see his love and repent if we desire. Thus, Ph.'s rejection of general revelation (which I mentioned earlier) was a rejection of God himself - a free rejection. In his love for his sin and power, God simply gave him over to it. He let him have it. That's the beauty of God's relationship with human creatures - he does not override their will, and thus, in allowing them to have the sin they desire, he is not implicated in their sin, only they are. BUT, if he determined that a child molester would molest, then He would be implicated in that molestation. There's a huge difference.

And, of course God raised up Ph. to display his power. Ph.'s wicked heart gave God the opportunity to display his name among the nations. Paul is clear that all rulers are raised up by God, and when they do not obey God will make his name great through their destruction. This is just good Bible doctrine. If Ph. had desired to repent, God would have displayed his great name that way too. Instead, Ph.'s sinful heart provided a different opportunity. Furthermore, it was a desire to show his 'power' over the pagan deities Ph. was worshipping (vs. 14). After all, the plagues in the context were all targeted against the Egyptian deities.

okay, more later, but my dog is going crazy cuz I think he's got to go #2....

Tom

Tom,
I intentionally avoided diving into a discussion of OS because, as JR puts it, that's where it would have gone in why I spoke that God does not work the evil in the sinner, but removes his restraining grace to allow the sinner to work in himself more evil. But I did not want to go there, this post is not on Total Depravity. However, God did sovereignly decree that Pharaoh would not let the people, which the text explicitly labels as sin, and then undertook to fulfill his decree. This cannot be avoided in this text. God, without implicating himself as unrighteous, moved Pharaoh to sin.

As far as determining something to happen, how is God not any less implicated in not preventing that sinner from committing that act of sin? If he does not prevent it, then in some sense, he has determined that it should happen. I don't see how what your saying fixes the problem you have with Calvinist hamartiology and soteriology. The Calvinist says that he determined to allow this sinner (if you want to say "allow") to commit this sinful act, but to a good end. That is he purposed to allow it to come to pass so that his greatness and his beauty and majesty would be seen and delighted in. That someone will see the truth of Psalm 16, that apart from God there is no good for in his presence is the fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore. Did not God say to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:16 that he did he raised up Pharaoh so that his name might be proclaimed and his power be shown? I have a question for you, what do you think Jesus was speaking of when he said to his disciples as he sent them out into the Palestinian countryside to preach the goodnews when he says in Matthew 10:29, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father," and how does it relate to the discussion of God's sovereignty in this post that Brad authored?


JR,
Calvinists do believe that we still choose to sin, willfully. Calvinists do believe that we choose Christ willfully. What we also say is that these choices are because of outside (or inside) forces controlling our wills. The decisions are not objective and neutral, but severely influenced. The decision to sin comes from the blinded (2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul says Satan blinds us) desire that is within us to sin, it is not objective. After all it is Jesus who said that the person who practices sin is the slave of sin. The decision to choose Christ is because God has revealed Jesus as the most beautiful treasure in the galaxy. The beauty of Christ has been shown in the heart of the unbeliever and he is drawn to that beauty like a moth to a flame. Christ is irresistible in his appeal when revealed to the heart and God removes that domineering voice of sin (I take this from what Paul says of himself in 2 Corinthians 4:6).

Your discussion (and Honzo's) of how human beings are incapable of objectivity really pressed this truth home to me. In our unregenerate state, our sin, which dwells in our hearts, clouds our minds and enslaves us to desire sin and its "fleeting pleasures." God overcomes that cloud by shining his beauty (which is another way I understand the term "glory") and showing that he is more attractive than sin. In doing so the sinner is overwhelmed by Christ crucified (the ugliest of scenes) and comes to him for salvation and the fulfillment of their joy. This is the essence of Piper's theology (as I understand it from what I have heard him preach and has written in God is the Gospel and Desiring God) and the Edwardsian world view.

I hope that this helps clarify my world view. May be if there are enough questions I can write up a post or a series on it. I funnel my entire world view through the lens of 2 Corinthians 4:4-6 and Psalm 16 (just an example of one of the many Psalms that speaks of God as our treasure and that we are to treasure him as such).

Hank,

I think this is going back to the Original Sin discussion again... you are (if i am anticipating you correctly) going to be able to argue now that since all humanity is (innately) sinful, then God gives us over to the sin that is already in us (much like he did with Pharaoh).

But if we don't believe that humanity is born guilty of Sin (Augustine's understanding, Piper's understanding, and - I would argue - popular Calvinist [if not orthodox Calvinist] understanding of OS), then we are not able to fall back on this, are we?

If we have to choose to be sinful, then don't we also have some part in choosing salvation?

Hank,
Thanks again for your response.

You, actually, have hit on exactly what my complaint was and in doing so, you changed your language.

That is, from the quote you cited from me, I said, in reference to Ref. Th.'s view of sin, "God doesn’t just allow it to happen - he has decided it would happen!" My problem lies in that God has determined that child-molester's will molest, oppressors will opress, etc. In your view, God just doesn't allow it - he determines it.

BUT - in your last response to me, you change from an active/deterministic language to a passive/allowing language when you say "God did not work fresh/new evil in him, but merely did not restrain the evil in Pharaoh"

Not restraining sin for certain reasons does not go against my theology. BUT, that is a far cry from determining that child molesters will molest.

Your shift from active to passive language, in other words, brings you more into my perspective. God allows sin, but does not determine it. As Ph. was already hard hearted, God simply allowed Ph. to do what he was already going to do in order that God's redemptive love might be displayed for all the nations.

Make sense? I hope I've been clear. Often these discussions are weighed down with foggy responses. Thanks for your patience if I have not been clear or have missed your point yet again.

I also forgot, even when Pharaoh is said to "harden his [own] heart" it was still "as the LORD had said." In other words, Pharaoh's self-hardening was still a fulfillment of God's promise to Moses that He, Yahweh, would harden the heart of Pharaoh so that the Hebrews would not go free. I cited all of the references above.

Tom,

I completely agree with your assessment of Pharaoh and his people (even the Hebrew people too). But this still does not defeat the connection that I articulated through the narrative. I was merely trying to show from the text that the sin that Pharaoh committed was still linked to God's actions, namely his hardening him. Pharaoh was already a callous and stone-hearted man before the incident. God did not work fresh/new evil in him, but merely did not restrain the evil in Pharaoh in light of the miracles that Yahweh was performing through Moses and Aaron.

Hank, thanks for the thorough response.

Just some thoughts I'd like to get your take on...

I still don't think God is ultimately responsible for Pharaoh's hard heart - yes, he did harden Ph. heart, but Ph. hardened his own heart as well. (I'd cite the text, but I can't remember it right off hand...if anyone's got it, then point it out)

Furthermore, what we find in Ph. even before God hardens his heart, is a man (who represents a nation), which has already rejected general revelation. Their hearts were already hardened against Yahweh - they turned the creature into the creator and worshipped idols instead of the True God. And all this was before God hardened his heart.

In addition to this, they not only were given over to their idols (a sign of wrath as you well know), but they persecuted the people of God for their own economic advantage and out of fear. These are not people with soft hearts! These are people who, prior to the reappearance of Moses, were already given over to their sin. God simply let them have what they already wanted.

So, when God hardens Ph.'s heart (and thus, the nation's heart with him), God is merely acting in accordance with what was ALREADY in Ph.'s heart! Ph.'s heart had already been 'given over' (in Pauline language), and the hardening of Ph.'s heart was hardly an overriding of Ph.'s will. Ph.'s will not only cooperated, but was well on its way prior to the Exodus events.

Again, thanks for the response Hank. I am delighted with the manner in which these discussions are being held. I think it is demonstrating that we are all honestly seeking the truth.

Tom,

I was reading the very good threads again today and I came across this statement,

I know that Ref. theol. says that God is not responsible for sin. But I honestly do not know how they avoid the logic of it. God doesn’t just allow it to happen - he has decided it would happen! …yet, somehow isn’t at all implicated? that just doesn’t make sense to me. I know you can appeal to mystery - but if that is one of my main objections, i need someone to wrestle with it or I will remain unconvinced. You can cite bible verses, but if this question remains unanswered, I’m going to look for alternative ways of seeing those texts.

When I read the confrontation of Moses and Pharaoh in Exodus 3-14, I see God doing just what you say he does not do. That is to say that in Exodus 4, he commands Moses to demand of Pharaoh the release of the Hebrew slaves to go into the wilderness to worship Yahweh. But he also tells Moses in the same breath that he will harden Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the people go (Exodus 4:21). When Moses goes before Pharaoh, Pharaoh does just what God said he would do, not let the people go (Exodus 5). Moses goes before God after the Hebrew people express outrage at their increased labor that resulted from Moses' feeble (for lack of a better word right now) attempt. Yahweh again tells Moses to command Pharaoh to release the Hebrew slaves, but he will harden his heart so that he will not let them go (Exodus 7:1-3). Then Moses goes before Pharaoh again and again and again we read that Pharaoh hardened his heart or his heart was hardened or Yahweh hardened his heart(Exodus 7:1-3, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 34-35; 10:20, 27; 14:3-5). All but Exodus 8:32 and 9:7 have these words as commentary to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, "as the LORD had said" or "as the LORD had said to Moses." Even more interesting is the statement of Pharaoh in Exodus 9:27 where he says, "This time I have sinned; the Lord is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong." His actions in not letting the people go was sin (whether or not Pharaoh was saying this to get Yahweh off his back is another issue, the point still stands that his not releasing the Hebrews is declared to be sin).

My point is simply this, logic or no, there is textual warrant in the Scriptures for the framing of God's relationship to sin as the Reformed tradition does, with out much appeal to mystery. God is behind our actions, both righteous and sinful, and is still not found to be unrighteous himself. Otherwise we have Yahweh being unrighteous in the Exodus account and Paul's entire argument in Romans 9:14-18 falls to shambles, especially Romans 9:17-18 Whether you accept this understanding of Pharaoh's hardening is something completely different.

as for your comment that in studying the scriptures if we come to some beliefs, those beliefs are paternalistic and dishonest. i just sincerely struggle with that. i may be misreading you but what are saying here?

i said:

i feel i’ve done that the best i can in my short life to do that ‘dealing.’ but moreso, i’ve have pored over those reformed folk who or older than me or have long since passed who have dealt with these passages at length and have brought harmony to reformed doctrine.

What about this is dishonest? i think i made it clear that i think it is exremely important to consult history. my caveat may be that i am consulting history on my side of the discussion.

my current concern. you say"

why is it the system you make the Scriptures fit into?

is that how it works? i thought it was the other way around?

in many ways, what i've already generally said about God's plan, sovereignty, providence, and foreknowledge is why i find calvinism 'compelling.' i think we would all say that we find a system compelling due to its strength over other systems.

all this to say, stay tuned to the rest of my series. i think it will show forth more fully my theological 'system' that finds its impetus in Scripture and is informed by my experience.

Brad,

this is just a quicky - it's bedtime and i have church in the morning ;)

I was not trying to be derogatory at all; rather, I feel that by throwing verses at those who don't believe as they do, Calvinists (and anyone else, for that matter) are belittling the person on the other side.  Essentially, we're saying "Hey, dummy, look at this verse.  It's there, plain as day."  We're assuming that the person just didn't know the right combination of verses, and thus doesn't agree with us.

You'll notice that I rarely cite specific examples (unless asked) for my statements.  This is because I trust that you and everyone else involved in these discussions is already aware of the textual evidence.  We don't need to discuss what words are printed on the pages of our Bibles.  (This, Tom, is why I'm still skeptical of a passage-specific analysis.)  I think what we really need is to figure out why we find our belief systems as compelling as we do.  That is, why am I not a Calvinist?  Why are you (or other Calvinists)?

To say merely that we've studied the scriptures and it's the truest answer is, IMO, dishonest and paternalistic.  Again, it assumes that we (who make those statements) are better students of the Scriptures than thousands of brothers and sisters throughout time and around the world today.  I'm not a very humble guy, but I am not quite arrogant enough (anymore) to make that claim.

So what I'm asking for is something along the lines of Honzo's latest series.  What is your theological system and why do you find it so compelling (that is, why is it the system you make the Scriptures fit into)?

Is that any kind of clear?

henry:

you know i love you brother! [henry and i are brothers-in-law...]

re: point 1. what i get from the term 'God-breathed' is what is says about itself, God literally inspired the writers of His Word through the power of the Holy Spirit.

let me say it this way. the content of the Bible is revelation. the process by which that content was written down is called inspiration. it didn't originate with the writers and it didn't come from their desire and their will, they were used as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit and enabled to speak from God.

so, when we read the Bible, i believe we are not reading the word of men, you're reading the Word of God that was written down by men who were moved along in the process by the power of the Holy Spirit. not apart from their personalities or experiences or vocabulary or heart passion and compulsion, but integrating all of that into the power of the Spirit of God and never compromising the truth that every word came from God.

it is also important to make the subtle point that men were not inspired but Scripture is. God breathed into them and they wrote it down. it was more than dictation. they weren't just listening to some voice and writing mechanically every word, it was flowing through their heart and their soul and their mind and their emotions and their experiences. but it came out every word the word of God. with all due respect, that says everything about the nature of the writing. is what God-breathed means to me.

the view that human authorship necessitates error presupposes that man’s will is independent of God’s will. i can't imagine God pinning down the biblical authors saying, ‘write this or you will be in big trouble!’ i am simply asserting what we find in Scripture—that God’s sovereignty enables Him to ensure that every word that appears in the pages of Scripture is according to His design.

the passage you speak of the sun standing still is a well-known 'fallacy' and i'll respond to it. simply, there are some things we speak from human perspective that are not intended to be statements of the technical elements of scientific data. and further, to impose that 'type' of interpretation on other parts of the bible is intellectually dishonest.

one of my questions at this point is what is the undergirding reasoning to bring out fallacies?

re: point 2. you say "...the reformed circles hold up the system higher than the passages that undermine it." i think we will all probably agree - or should - that an honest attempt to 'systemize' any doctrine is to deal with all passages, even passages that on the surface 'undermine' it. i feel i've done that the best i can in my short life to do that 'dealing.' but moreso, i've have pored over those reformed folk who or older than me or have long since passed who have dealt with these passages at length and have brought harmony to reformed doctrine. to say that we hold up the system over potentially undermining passages is 'fighting words.'

again, love you bro! let's keep this convo going...

Tom,

Thank you for wanting to make this conversation about a specific passage of Scripture. There have been times I have tried to ask for it and did not get it b/c I was a bit emotional in the way I asked. I would love to see a non-Reformed exegesis of Romans 9 or John 6 or the texts that JR was talking about in relation to Classical Theism vs. Open Theism.

Brad,

I wanna quickly address two of your points ('cause I am in the middle of cleaning house with Meredith).

i) Scripture being God breathed - I agree that it is too... but what does that mean? According to the passage in the Timothy letters:

You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

all that we get out of something being God-Breathed are its useful characteristics (for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training, equipping). That says nothing about the nature of the writing, historical, or through which perspective it was written. I am just saying that it is possible to hold to something being God-breathed (heck we all are, as humans) and for a particular passage to be highly colored by the culture it was written in. Think about the passage where Sol stood still. Obviously, God did not brake the earth in its rotation and revolution around Sol. There would be all kinds of physical evidence for that. So, it is only that from the perspective of the writer that Sol stood still. I am saying that it is possible that once can use that model of interpretation in other parts of scripture, especially where the scriptures directly conflict.

ii) By subvert, I do not mean the latter part of the Webster definition. I mean that the reformed circles hold up the system higher than the passages that undermine it. It is the same with every attempt at fully systematizing the scriptures. I do respect the reformed interpretation and doubt not its intentions - I just think that it has serious flaws, as I am sure most reformed adherents think Arminians, Open Theists, etc have with theirs.

I think what we need at this point is not another discussion of one person's systematic theology vs. another person's systematic theology. Nor do we need verses being thrown at each other or polemical theologians being cited against one another's position.

Rather, I think it would be helpful for us to take a text and do some exegetical work in it. I know that Romans 9 is a big text for everyone involved here. What if we got an Arminian take on it or a Calvinist take on it and hashed out the exegesis of the text? This would go much further than trying to debunk each others systems - as systems are rarely, if ever, just about the logic - they also contain many emotional attractions and experiential attractions.

That said - I think, Brad, you have adequately represented the reformed position here. Thank you.

What I would say is, though, that you make the comment that God allows certain things (passive), but then from there you go on to assert that these things are planned (active). There is a big difference. When I sin I am willing to admit the first - that God allowed it. But to say that God planned for me to sin, that is he took an active role in deciding I would do so, is dangerous.

I know that Ref. theol. says that God is not responsible for sin. But I honestly do not know how they avoid the logic of it. God doesn't just allow it to happen - he has decided it would happen! ...yet, somehow isn't at all implicated? that just doesn't make sense to me. I know you can appeal to mystery - but if that is one of my main objections, i need someone to wrestle with it or I will remain unconvinced. You can cite bible verses, but if this question remains unanswered, I'm going to look for alternative ways of seeing those texts.

JR - I agree that there is little sense in throwing texts out at one another. I'm wondering, though, if you might consider taking one of those texts which was thrown at you and show why that text doesn't support the reformed position? I know you're brilliant and capable, but don't feel like you have to do so if you don't have time.

that last part was kind've confusing to me. i know, i wrote it...

let me rephrase it. obviously the bible is a collection of 'third parties' transcribing scripture. the caveat is these 'third parties' were inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus God-breathed. this isn't purely or even mostly subjective but rather, though some would argue, purely or mostly objectively God speaking...

jr.:

a few things. first, in saying "throwing scripture verses back and forth, and as I comment elsewhere, this is not going to be compelling" is an interesting statement. i agree that just doing that isn't compelling but 1) can you again describe what would be compelling? and 2) from what is the primary source from which we are supposed to cull the information we need to determine doctrine?

second, i can't help but feel that i'm being told i'm not progressive enough in my hermeneutics when you state "Those of us who lean towards OTh know the verses Classic theists cite. We’ve read them. Many of us have even interpreted them as do CThs at some point in our lives." So since I haven't moved past the point you have, I am somehow incorrect? Help me understand this...

third, you cite experience and further study of both sides as reasoning for the position you hold. i don't think you are saying this, but humble, mature calvinist's - not rigid, dogmatic hyper-calvinists - do not come to their belief's apart from experience and consistent study of both sides either.

"futher study" does not neccesitate that one no longer be a calvinist. in fact, for myself, it has reinforced it.

you say, "The God that I know outside the Bible (through personal and communal experience of that God) doesn’t always line up with the God I meet in the Scriptures." so what should be the source of our confidence? for me, my 'experience' is subject to the Word and not vice versa or better, it is a back-and-forth 'conversation.' maybe that is what you are saying.

i'm concerned that you are saying that if after the hard work of interpretation is done and that interp doesn't line up with your experience, there is a possibility that your experience can trump the Word. help me understand...

henry:

you say, "In order for God to be constantly and actively ruling every aspect of this world, then it would have to have been God’s active will for that act to occur (for his “glory” somehow?)." how so? rule does not mean coercion does it?

to liken finite plan-making to an infinite God and his plan is starting from a place i can't. the idea of whether God can 'change' i think has come up here before, but that is another post. [can you help me understand your use of "She" as a pronoun for God?]

i'm not sure how i feel about your use of the word "subvert" in relation to reformed interpretation. webster's says this is an act of overthrowing, overturning, perverting, or corrupting. ouch. tell me you have more respect for 'us' than that...

"It is possible that we are just getting how God looks from their point of view, not some objective account from a third party, but from the perspective of the people that actually wrote it." there is no question that context is important in understanding, but i can't ever, on a more general level, disconnect myself from the idea that all of scripture is God-breathed. that brings scripture out of the purely 'subjective,' third party realm to the objective realm. a God who hasn't revealed himself specifically in some form but rather through a third party is a God that does not truly love His children imo...

Man, there are so many good conversations going on on several threads - I don't know where to begin to join in!

Brad, I'll try to address conversationally your post.

I'll grant you that God essentially owns everything that he has created - but I have to disagree with "He exerts not merely a general influence, but actually rules the world in which He has created." As I have talked about several times, there is a difference between actively ruling and passively ruling something. God can, at any point, exert Her influence and will on any situation, but that does not It has to at every point. For an example of this, simply think of the worst act of violence that you have heard of happening. In order for God to be constantly and actively ruling every aspect of this world, then it would have to have been God's active will for that act to occur (for his "glory" somehow?). Under the passive model, God has the power, but for some reason (I like to go with allowing the exercise of free will in His creation.)

Also, as to the plan part - I make plans, and sometimes, due to the free will that exists in others, the plans do not go as I would like them to go. It is possible that this is what is happening with God. That does not mean that She does not go with alternate or contingency plans.

As JR said, the Reformed position subverts the verses where God is not in complete control, changes, or does not know the future 100% in favor of the system they have created (then again, show me a system that does not to this, and I will join it). When it comes to these places, an option I don't often see considered is a interpretation that says that the authors are speaking from an ancient, non-Greek, understanding of God. It is possible that we are just getting how God looks from their point of view, not some objective account from a third party, but from the perspective of the people that actually wrote it.

Anyway, those are some thoughts off the top of my head as I am working on other things. I am enjoying reading both sides here (as a person that just doesn't know much besides trying to follow JC as best I can).

Brad,

I looked at the outline for the Ware talk (and I've read his remarkably unimpressive and cruel rebuttal to Open Theism, Their God is Too Small).  I have to say that - having not watched the video - it seems that the presentation is little more than throwing scripture verses back and forth, and as I comment elsewhere, this is not going to be compelling.  Those of us who lean towards OTh know the verses Classic theists cite.  We've read them.  Many of us have even interpreted them as do CThs at some point in our lives. 

The problem is, at least in my case, that the picture of God painted by the CTh views (be they Calvinist or Arminian) wasn't (isn't) consistent with the Jesus i've met in the Scriptures and the Jesus with whom I have a relationship.  So, I have had to go back and reexamine those verses, as well as take into account numerous verses I had willfully ignored before.

The God that I know outside the Bible (through personal and communal experience of that God) doesn't always line up with the God I meet in the Scriptures.  In those cases, I always have to ask which picture is wrong, or if they're both wrong.  And then I and my community strive together to serve and know and love the right God.

For those of you that don't have the time or patience to sit through the video (me on both counts), the Resurgence has put up a PDF of the talk's points: Uncertain Hands of God and Men: Providence in Process Thought and Open Theism.

To answer your last question first, there are other options, namely open theism. I'm focusing in on Calvinism and Arminianism since they have been the two main 'hubs' of discussion for decades.

I would say that the nature of your questions seem to indicate that you may lean towards open theism but I don't want to put words in your mouth, in all sincerity. As we discuss, I want to iterate that I will respect anyone's convinctions on these issues. I'm merely stating mine.

There is a video that I would point you to that will more fully attempt to answer your questions:

Uncertain Hands of God and Men: Providence in Process Thought and Open Theism by Bruce Ware of SBTS.

Btw, Arminiasm is spelled with an "i" after the "m," not an "e".

What if the "best possible world/plan" is one in which free creatures help God to shape the (unknown) future of that world in a love-relationship with their creator?

Why must God exercise absolute control in order for the world to be 'best'?  With what definition of 'best' are we working?  Certainly not one that includes free choice, which IMO must be included in any definition of a 'best' creature.

Why does a God who has plans that don't come to fruition necessarily 'fall' to the creaturely level?  Cannot our plan-making and frustration at plans that do not achieve fruition be a reflection of God's character in our lives?

If Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, then we must allow that things don't always go as God intends them - Jesus was frequently frustrated with the disciples when they didn't understand what he thought they understood (e.g., Mark 4).  Additionally, the prophets often speak of God as surprised or disappointed.  God is sorry that s/he created humanity (Genesis 6) and Moses talks God out of destroying the Israelites (Exodus 32).

So where in all of this is a God who is not open to his/her creation's influence on him/her?

One last thing... we're all aware that 'Calvinist' and 'Armenian' are not the only two options, right?  Armeninans are really just Calvinists in denial, after all.

Hi Brad,

I like the size of this article. Since this is a complicated subject, it will be cool if you keep the following posts short and sweet as you build your case.

I'm looking forward to it.

Edgar.