Predestination

[Vince]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 6

Before God hardened Pharaoh's heart, He sent some plagues but then relieved the Egyptians. What was Pharaoh's response to God's showing him mercy?

Ex. 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

Ex. 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.

In both passages, we see that Pharaoh had hardened his own heart before God did it to him. We saw from Galatians 6:7 that when a person sins, he corrupts his own flesh as a result of that sin. So, what effect did Pharaoh's hardening his own heart have on him? The next verse, Exodus 9:35, tells us:


35 So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the LORD had spoken by Moses.

A hardened heart was now a permanent condition with Pharaoh, and yet God had not hardened it yet.

 

[Drew]

Drew, we have mutually examined this issue, and you are in a wild circle of logic, on one hand stating, knowing and admitting that God hardens both JEW and GENTILE, yet you land on unbelieving Jew hardening ONLY when in both Romans 9 and 11 there are clearly NON Jews hardened as well as that possibility to ANY believer. So you are merely in an unsupportable circle of illogicial nonsense.

Incorrect. My logic is perfectly fine. Please tell us where the error is in the following:

1. God can and does harden both Jews and Gentiles;
2. Paul uses the example of the hardening of a Gentile - Pharoah - to make his fundamental point about hardening in 9 to 11 - that Jews have been hardened.

This is really just simple logic. It is perfectly coherent to use the example of the hardening of a Gentile to make the argument that God has also chosen to harden Jews (and Jews only) in respect to a specific redemptive purpose.

 

[Drew]

And we are clearly presented with TWO NON-JEWS as examples in Romans 9, that being Pharaoh and Esau. Your theory is unsupportable.

I am sorry, but your reasoning here is simply and obviously incorrect. It is entirely possible for Paul to use the hardening of non-Jews as examples that establish the general principle that God has the right to harden anybody he likes and to then proceed to the conclusion - that God has hardened Jews at a particular time in history.

This is perfecltly legitimate logic. It is true that Paul does not explicitly tell us who the vessels of destruction are - but one cannot, legitimately anyway, conclude that it must be a category that includes all the preceeding examples.

Consider this example: A teacher says this: I failed Fred for not working hard; I failed Joe for not working hard. So you "vessels of failure" have also failed because you did not work hard.

By your reasoning, the "vessels of failure" category must include men since the examples given are men. But, and here is the point, the teacher could be talking to a class girls only and telling them they have all failed.

So there it is - proof that the examples given up to the "vessels of destruction" category need not necessarily belong to the "vessels of destruction" category.

 

[Drew]

I've already accepted that fact, as have you. Yet you insist on the 'unbelieving Jews' only, which is openly NOT the case. The hardening is clearly shown to NON-JEWS and also to the potential of hardening of ANY believer.

Obviously God has hardened non-Jews. But your logic appears to be: since God has hardened non-Jews, Paul is not permitted to make an argument about how God has hardened Jews in particular. Do you see the problem?

I don't disagree that Paul shows the principle of hardening to Jews, but that is NOT all that is shown. So it cannot logically be unbelieving Jews only.

This is logically incorrect, as I have just shown. The fact that God can and does harden Gentiles does not mean that He cannot, and did not, harden Jews at a particular point in history and for a particular purpose.

Like many, you appear to assume that Paul is making timeless theolgical statements here. He is not. Romans 9 through the first half of 10 is a recounting of the entire history of Israel from Abraham to the present time. It is a spefically historical argument about God and his dealings with, yes, Israel.

A statement about Jews being hardened in the course of Israel's history fits perfectly in such a setting. A timeless treatment of God hardening both Jews and Gentiles is wildly out of place.

Paul showed the same principle of hardening to ANY who do not believe the Gospel in 2 Cor. 4:4 by their BLINDING by the 'god of this world.' Again, not unbeliving Jews only.

But this is not 2 Corinthians! It is Romans 9 - you cannot simply assume that Paul here is talking about the same issue as he was in 2 Corinthians.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

Paul tells us what the election is about - that one will serve the other.

I suppose you are referring to this verse rom 9:

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

So where does it state in this verse that paul does not have

as you say:

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind.

You have failed to back up your presumption ! For rom 9:12 says nothing about that !

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

Obviously God has hardened non-Jews.

There you go again, you do not know what you believe do you ?

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

and did not, harden Jews at a particular point in history and for a particular purpose.

Sure He hardened ethnic jews for a purpose, God hardened the gentile egyptians for a specific purpose.

God always does things according to a specific purpose !

Everyone God hardens was for a specific purpose deut 2:30

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that[ for the purpose] he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

 

[Drew]

You have failed to back up your presumption ! For rom 9:12 says nothing about that !

All right, let me play this game along with you:

57, where does it say in Romans 9 that Paul is not thinking about what he is going to have for dinner?

57, where does it say in Romans 9 that Paul is not thinking about having a good cup of tea after dictating this letter?

Aha - can't find such statement can you.

I therefore conclude that a central theme of Romans 9 is about what Paul wants to have for dinner and that he will have a cup of tea. Since Paul never denies these things, anyone who suggests that the letter is not about such matters has failed to make their case.

See the problem?

 

[Drew]

drew:



There you go again, you do not know what you believe do you ?

And there you go again, giving the readers a clinic in incorrect logic.

I have not been inconsistent in any sense. To say that God can and did harden Gentiles at some points in the history of the world does not mean that He did not specifically harden Jews, and Jews only, for a very specific purpose (in history).

 

[smaller]

Obviously God has hardened non-Jews.

No kidding? Then along comes Drew with his JEWS ONLY claims, even when acknowledging NOT Jews only. Yeah Drew, that makes sense....NOT.

But your logic appears to be: since God has hardened non-Jews, Paul is not permitted to make an argument about how God has hardened Jews in particular. Do you see the problem?

I take specific exception to your JEWS ONLY spiel simply because it is neither TRUE nor LOGICAL. How's that?

This is logically incorrect, as I have just shown. The fact that God can and does harden Gentiles does not mean that He cannot, and did not, harden Jews at a particular point in history and for a particular purpose.

GREAT. Then get real and OFF the term ONLY. That is NOT True and NOT logical.

Like many, you appear to assume that Paul is making timeless theolgical statements here. He is not.

Timeless? Where did that come from? Unbelievers TODAY remain BLINDED by the 'god of this world,' that would be SATAN, and it happens to ALL unbelievers today just as it did PRIOR all the way back to Adam.

The unbelieving Jews 'only' view is NOT true or logical. Particularly when out of your own mouth you say IT'S NOT unbelieving JEWS ONLY, but it IS unbelieving JEWS ONLY.

I don't do this too often, but....

Romans 9 through the first half of 10 is a recounting of the entire history of Israel from Abraham to the present time. It is a spefically historical argument about God and his dealings with, yes, Israel.

And Pharoah, and Esau and BELIEVERS....again NOT unbelieving Jews ONLY.

A statement about Jews being hardened in the course of Israel's history fits perfectly in such a setting. A timeless treatment of God hardening both Jews and Gentiles is wildly out of place.

Yeah, except when you admit the hardening of Gentiles as well.

Your logic here is simply bizarre, that's all.

But this is not 2 Corinthians! It is Romans 9 - you cannot simply assume that Paul here is talking about the same issue as he was in 2 Corinthians.

Trying to pit Paul's words against each other is quite pointless as well.

UNbelievers of ANY nationality ARE blinded by the 'god of this world.' Of this fact there is NO scriptural DOUBT.

enjoy!

s

 

[Drew]

No kidding? Then along comes Drew with his JEWS ONLY claims, even when acknowledging NOT Jews only. Yeah Drew, that makes sense....NOT.

What I am suggesting makes perfect sense. The fact that God can and did harden Gentiles for specific reasons in history does not mean that He did not harden Jews (and Jews only) for a specific reason in history.

I am sorry if you do not like it, but the logic is perfectly correct here.

I take specific exception to your JEWS ONLY spiel simply because it is neither TRUE nor LOGICAL. How's that?

You need to actually make your case, not simply state your position.

This is logically incorrect, as I have just shown. The fact that God can and does harden Gentiles does not mean that He cannot, and did not, harden Jews at a particular point in history and for a particular purpose.

GREAT. Then get real and OFF the term ONLY. That is NOT True and NOT logical.

You have made no actual case - no substantive argument has been provided as to why Paul could not, in Romans 9, be saying (amongst other things) that God has hardened Jews only in support of a very specific redemptive purpose, over and above the hardenings of Gentiles that are also mentioned in the text.

Timeless? Where did that come from? Unbelievers TODAY remain BLINDED by the 'god of this world,' that would be SATAN, and it happens to ALL unbelievers today just as it did PRIOR all the way back to Adam.

No doubt - but just because this is so does not mean that Paul is talking about this in this particular text - Romans 9

The unbelieving Jews 'only' view is NOT true or logical. Particularly when out of your own mouth you say IT'S NOT unbelieving JEWS ONLY, but it IS unbelieving JEWS ONLY.

You are simply making statement with no case. It is clear that God could have chosen to harden Jews, and only Jews, for some specific reason in history. He hardened Pharaoh - a Gentile - for one purpose. So why can He not have hardened Jews for another?

I don't do this too often, but....

Well, since my arguments are perfectly coherent, and you have not found a single error in them, I suggest your dismissive little image here is really not appropriate.

This is really not that difficult: The fact that Paul describes how God has hardened Gentiles - Pharoah for example - does not mean that Paul could not be using those examples to establish that God has the right to harden whomever He wants to harden, and then make the case that God has, at a particular point in her history, and for a particular reason, hardened Jews and Jew only.

 

[smaller]

What I am suggesting makes perfect sense. The fact that God can and did harden Gentiles for specific reasons in history does not mean that He did not harden Jews (and Jews only) for a specific reason in history.

Your claim is that unbelievings JEWS ONLY are the vessels of destruction.

I am sorry if you do not like it, but the logic is perfectly correct here.

Provably and patently INcorrect. WE all know that the devil and his messengers WILL be destroyed. This makes those entities AUTOMATICALLY vessels of DIShonour as well.

You need to actually make your case, not simply state your position.

There is no 'unbelieving Jews' ONLY story there Drew. That is your imposition, and an impostion that you don't even hold when you aknowledge that God does NOT harden unbelieving Jews only. Again...

You have made no actual case -

Actually you bypass the case, and more than likely because you have no grasp of the subject matter. I have repeatedly made the CASE that Paul had a 'VESSEL OF DISHONOR' in the form of EVIL PRESENT and A DEVIL.

There are OBVIOUSLY TWO ENTITIES or TWO DIFFERENT VESSELS upon Paul. If you'd care to address this fact, and tell me WHY the DEVIL upon Paul could NOT be a vessel of DISHONOR have at it.

The instant you acknowledge that THE DEVIL that Paul had was WITH Paul but NOT PAUL you have TWO completely SEPARATE identities or VESSELS in the SAME LUMP as PAUL. To arrive in Romans 9 with this factual information IN HAND goes a LONG way in understanding the 'identity' of the vessels.

You do understand that there is a veritable MOUNTAIN of scriptural evidence of ENTITIES in Israel in the N.T. called DEVILS and SATAN that Jesus dealt with IN JEWS and GENTILES in the N.T. Gospels.

How any person can read the Gospels and MISS ENTIRELY the other entities that are shown to be IN AND WITH mankind is pretty bizarre to me.

It would seem rather easy to see PETER and SATAN in the SAME BODY and say they were not the SAME entity and that PETER was a vessel of HONOR and SATAN in Peter is a VESSEL OF DISHONOR.

The most likely TWO CANDIDATES for the vessels are MANKIND and DEVILS as they are BOTH obviously and openly shown in the text as being in the SAME LUMP.

Your position has ZERO identity applied to the OTHER ENTITIES that are in and with MANKIND. Exactly ZERO. So there is another specific for you to try and tackle.

no substantive argument has been provided as to why Paul could not, in Romans 9, be saying (amongst other things) that God has hardened Jews only in support of a very specific redemptive purpose, over and above the hardenings of Gentiles that are also mentioned in the text.

Paul could not be making that claim because IT ISN'T THERE. Whom he will should have been stated as 'unbelieving Jews ONLY' but what you want isn't there.

No doubt - but just because this is so does not mean that Paul is talking about this in this particular text - Romans 9

The instant you acknowledge that mankind was shown by Jesus to have MORE than ONE identity, which is clearly shown, the identities of the vessels is OBVIOUS. And it is likewise obvious your view does not account for DEVILS and SATAN with and within mankind. You are a COMPLETE BLANK on this factual subject matter. Like it's not even there for you to grasp.

You are simply making statement with no case. It is clear that God could have chosen to harden Jews, and only Jews, for some specific reason in history.

But YOU don't even believe that, yet you keep claiming that.

He hardened Pharaoh - a Gentile - for one purpose. So why can He not have hardened Jews for another?

Yeah, you say JEWS ONLY and then give a great example of a NON-Jew. Why do you play this game?

Well, since my arguments are perfectly coherent,

and you have not found a single error in them,

I suggest your dismissive little image here is really not appropriate.

This is really not that difficult: The fact that Paul describes how God has hardened Gentiles - Pharoah for example - does not mean that Paul could not be using those examples to establish that God has the right to harden whomever He wants to harden, and then make the case that God has, at a particular point in her history, and for a particular reason, hardened Jews and Jew only.

Nope, no goofy stuff there Drew....Nah, I certainly DON'T SEE IT.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

And there you go again, giving the readers a clinic in incorrect logic.

As James wrote under inspiration: james 1:

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[savedbygrace57]

smaller:

No kidding? Then along comes Drew with his JEWS ONLY claims,

I know right ? Then he changes his mind ! lol

 

[savedbygrace57]

smaller:

your claim is that unbelievings JEWS ONLY are the vessels of destruction.

Yes, and he is yet to show us the scripture that makes this claim of his. We are suppose to take his word for it.

Whatever drew says, is what God meant.

With his teaching, only jews are on the wide road to destruction Matt 7:13

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

 

[Vince]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 6

We have seen from Scripture that Pharaoh had already corrupted his own flesh by hardening his heart, and that he now had a hard heart, without God doing anything to him yet. But, actually, God had done something to Pharaoh...

Jesus, Who enlightens every man who comes into the world, had enlightened Pharaoh. God the Father had drawn Pharaoh to Christ by teaching him. And the grace of God that brings salvation had appeared to Pharaoh.

But now, having rejected God's mercy, Pharaoh faces the consequences of his sins.

 

[savedbygrace57]

vince:

Jesus, Who enlightens every man who comes into the world

Not every man without exception, but everyman of His body, His Church.

By Nature all men are in darkness, in fact, before regeneration we are darkness.

eph 5:8

For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Our minds are in darkness eph 4:18

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

This is how men enter into the world by nature !

 

[smaller]

smaller:
Yes, and he is yet to show us the scripture that makes this claim of his. We are suppose to take his word for it.

Whatever drew says, is what God meant.

With his teaching, only jews are on the wide road to destruction Matt 7:13

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Who really is on the 'wide path' that leads to destruction than those who seek to destroy their fellow man by the Words of God?

 

[Vince]

Jesus, Who enlightens every man who comes into the world
vs.
Not every man without exception, but everyman of His body, His Church.


Maybe we should take a look at that verse. Does it say that Jesus enlightens EVERY man who comes into the world, or Jesus enlightens SOME men who come into the world?

John 1:9 9 "That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world."

 

[savedbygrace57]

smaller:

Who really is on the 'wide path' that leads to destruction

All the non elect, which belong to the seed of the serpent, the vessels of wrath.