Who's Choosing Who?

[POI]

For Debate: The Bible looks to suggest that God decides who shall become inexorably drawn to him. If this is the case, then it matters not what we do or think, as we are already pre-selected without our own will to do anything to change it. Oh, and BTW, per Romans 9, do not question God's action(s) either. Does this seem like a reasonable and worthy God? I guess the question is irrelevant? Why? If you do or do not deem God reasonable or worthy is irrelevant, as this is already how God decided to make you feel anyways.

Or, is this passage taken completely out of context? If so, please enlighten all of us?

***********************************************

Reference:

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? -- Romans 9

[POI]

This is why, in the OP, I provided the entire context of God's assertion, (not just a one-liner - trying to pull a 'fast one').

Except you didn’t provide the entire context. You provided Romans 9:16-21. That is not even close to the entire context.

Again, I disagree.

there is no need to absolve the statement in v. 15-22.

the lines before and after can help correct your misinterpretation of the statement in 15-22.

But they don't.

I shared detailed reasons why one should think your interpretation of what that statement is is wrong. In response, you keep choosing to simply restate your conclusion rather than coherently explain how this context bolsters your understanding of the statement in v. 15-22.

Okay, let's try this again....

16 - God's "mercy/compassion" does not depend on your desire or efforts.
17 - As one example, God hardened the Pharaoh's heart as a demonstration of his power.
18 - God hardens who he wants.
19 - Why blame us if he should decide to harden any of us?
20 - Don't give me any lip.
21 - I created all of you, I can do as a please. You have no say in the matter, nor does your opinion matter.
22 - God uses some as a "tool", for a means to an end.
23 - Ditto

Tell me where it says God only hardened the hearts of the character(s) in the OT? I guess the point being, it's yet another sloppy passage, open to wide interpretation. Does the hardening only apply to the Pharaoh and OT friends, or not? Does the hardening only involve tasks (excluding) being drawn/undrawn to him, or not? The topic is raised, and open to more questions than answers. We are only left with assumption. Either clarify with more specifics, or don't raise the topic of hardening the heart at all. As it stands, some violation of free will is achieved. Where does this violation begin/end exactly? This is more likely a rhetorical question.

The only way to guarantee perfect understanding is to create robots. So, no, I wouldn’t amend giving beings free will to avoid this.

But hardening hearts, which violates free will, by keeping one from God, is okay.

The earnest one will come to see that it is irrational to think any sort of contradiction (for example, the Bible noting two different opinions on a subject) should equal the death of the Bible’s authority.

Maybe I will create a new topic here, for Christians to address.

Further, I'm not saying this OP topic turns one from God. I'm saying God's hardening of hearts would.

But not in the way you think there are contradictions.

I'm not claiming "contradictions" exist in Romans 9.

Even when we have the author clarifying, there will still be people who make up motivations and say the author is lying and that they really did mean such-and-such. And especially when the topic is one’s view on what they feel is an important topic, we’d have scholars not agreeing.

Maybe God is hardening their hearts

This passage speaks of one instance.

He speaks of one specific instance, as an example, yes. But in verse 18, he then states he hardens whom he wants. And in verse 19, it is confirmed that the interlocutors of this statement are aware it's not the only instance. Hence, the hardening of hearts is unknown in scope, practice, frequency, other.

Thus, does a hardened heart lead to God?

[The Tanager]

Okay, let's try this again....

16 - God's "mercy/compassion" does not depend on your desire or efforts.
17 - As one example, God hardened the Pharaoh's heart as a demonstration of his power.
18 - God hardens who he wants.
19 - Why blame us if he should decide to harden any of us?
20 - Don't give me any lip.
21 - I created all of you, I can do as a please. You have no say in the matter, nor does your opinion matter.
22 - God uses some as a "tool", for a means to an end.
23 - Ditto

Which I’ve already adequately responded to. The hardening is spoken of about a very specific kind of thing that is not an individual’s salvation decision. Yet you think anything goes, with no textual or logical reason to do so.

Tell me where it says God only hardened the hearts of the character(s) in the OT?

Tell me where I said God only hardened the hearts of the character(s) in the OT.

I guess the point being, it's yet another sloppy passage, open to wide interpretation. Does the hardening only apply to the Pharaoh and OT friends, or not? Does the hardening only involve tasks (excluding) being drawn/undrawn to him, or not? The topic is raised, and open to more questions than answers. We are only left with assumption. Either clarify with more specifics, or don't raise the topic of hardening the heart at all.

No, it’s not. It is a sloppy interpretation on your part. The fault is the assumptions you have made that aren’t in the text. Don’t go beyond what the text specifically addresses with irrational assumptions.

But hardening hearts, which violates free will, by keeping one from God, is okay.

No, the hardening is not about keeping one from God, not about their individual salvation.

He speaks of one specific instance, as an example, yes. But in verse 18, he then states he hardens whom he wants.

In the context of one specific kind of hardening, which isn’t about salvation.

And in verse 19, it is confirmed that the interlocutors of this statement are aware it's not the only instance. Hence, the hardening of hearts is unknown in scope, practice, frequency, other.

But not that hardening extends into salvation. That is your wrong assumption you are applying the text to. You can’t take one thing and apply it to everything just because you want to. It is irrational. You have the freedom to realize that. If your interpretation is wrong, then you have the ability to change your interpretation. It’s not the text’s fault.

[POI]

Which I’ve already adequately responded to.

If we trek back to (the source) of Paul's statement, Exodus 9, it reads that a threat/promise is made to the Pharaoh. (i.e.) Aside from sending 'natural disasters' and the like, the threat/promise also includes letting God's people go, so God's chosen people can go and worship him, or God will re-harden the Pharaoh's heart. Further, being that the hardening of his heart is mentioned in such a "matter-of-fact or one-liner" type of way, one could easily assume that God hardens hearts, as needed, to steer desired outcome(s).

(Satire alert, but to make a point) -- So yea, maybe God is hardening my heart to bring more Christians to God? I'm the pawn in God's chess game here, to achieve God's desired outcome for you and other Christians. To draw you towards him by hardening my heart. (i.e.) Your view of my 'irrationality" is affirmed, to even further lead you to God. (End of satire alert).

In other words, God hardens some to draw others; per his plan. He hardens some humans to draw other humans. Are the hardened spared?

The hardening is spoken of about a very specific kind of thing that is not an individual’s salvation decision.

Heart(s), that are hardened by God, come to God then? Wouldn't the hardening of one's heart prevent and/or detour one's salvation?

Yet you think anything goes, with no textual or logical reason to do so.

Not so fast...

No, it’s not. It is a sloppy interpretation on your part. The fault is the assumptions you have made that aren’t in the text. Don’t go beyond what the text specifically addresses with irrational assumptions.

Not so fast. Based upon the fictitious story in Exodus 9, if God does not get what we wants, he plays with free will. And not just making them pick vanilla over chocolate, but instead hardens their heart(s). Thus, again, unanswered in previous posts.... Does salvation come to hardened heart(s)?

No, the hardening is not about keeping one from God, not about their individual salvation.

So hardened hearts are saved? Then I guess all are saved?

**************

Thus far, your argument fails. The greatest commandments state "i1) to love god, 2) and to love your neighbor". If God causes one to be hardened, one cannot achieve the second commandment for sure, and/or maybe even the first commandment.

[The Tanager]

If we trek back to (the source) of Paul's statement, Exodus 9, it reads that a threat/promise is made to the Pharaoh. (i.e.) Aside from sending 'natural disasters' and the like, the threat/promise also includes letting God's people go, so God's chosen people can go and worship him, or God will re-harden the Pharaoh's heart. Further, being that the hardening of his heart is mentioned in such a "matter-of-fact or one-liner" type of way, one could easily assume that God hardens hearts, as needed, to steer desired outcome(s).

But what is the stated outcome God is steering this towards? It’s not a blank check, fill in whatever you want. It was to make God’s power and name known. God could have immediately saved the Israelites, but He was, as Paul notes in Romans 9, showing patience to those who were doing the oppressing. God is showing mercy even to the Egyptians by this very specific hardening of hearts. Why? Because God’s desire is that all would come to be His people.

(Satire alert, but to make a point) -- So yea, maybe God is hardening my heart to bring more Christians to God? I'm the pawn in God's chess game here, to achieve God's desired outcome for you and other Christians. To draw you towards him by hardening my heart. (i.e.) Your view of my 'irrationality" is affirmed, to even further lead you to God. (End of satire alert).

In other words, God hardens some to draw others; per his plan. He hardens some humans to draw other humans. Are the hardened spared?

The text is not about hardening non-believers for the good of believers or hardening some regarding salvation to draw others to salvation. Look again at Exodus 9:15-21, for example. God’s patience was so that all of Egypt wouldn’t be destroyed (15). To show God’s name in all the earth, not just for the chosen people (16). And some of Pharaoh’s servants listen and obey and save their people and livestock (20).

Heart(s), that are hardened by God, come to God then? Wouldn't the hardening of one's heart prevent and/or detour one's salvation?

No, after all that happened Pharaoh could have still turned to God for salvation because God didn’t harden anyone to or away from salvation.

Thus far, your argument fails. The greatest commandments state "i1) to love god, 2) and to love your neighbor". If God causes one to be hardened, one cannot achieve the second commandment for sure, and/or maybe even the first commandment.

No, the hardening isn’t about those things. You have even admitted you get that through pure assumption, merely because the text doesn’t qualify that “I’m not talking about A or B or C or D.” Instead of only holding the text to what it directly addresses.

Instead of showing support for why this assumption of yours is correct, you simply act like it’s true. You just keep doubling down on an assumption you have no rational reason to make. This is your fault, no one else’s.

[POI]

Instead of showing support for why this assumption of yours is correct, you simply act like it’s true. You just keep doubling down on an assumption you have no rational reason to make. This is your fault, no one else’s.

I've shown plenty of support for my position. I cannot help you anymore, if you cannot see it. And it's you, who keeps doubling down on an assumption for which you have no rational reason to make. This is your fault and no one else's. I am now tired of riding the hamster wheel. As with most debates, both parties think they have the right interpretation. I guess the readers can see the exchange for themselves and decide. Either you are right, I'm right, or we are both off.

[1213]

Okay. But in doing so, he sometimes first controls one's mind to control the upcoming wanted conditions.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe He controls minds. To draw someone, it is not necessary to control persons mind.

[TRANSPONDER]

Okay. But in doing so, he sometimes first controls one's mind to control the upcoming wanted conditions.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe He controls minds. To draw someone, it is not necessary to control persons mind.

The only actual example of mind control is God forcing Pharaoh (who was minded th let the Israelites go free) to refuse to let them go, just so God could display His power. An example of damning created people by somehow making sure they wouldn't hear the message is the bit about talking in parables, and the abrogation of free will in blinding Paul until he converted.

The principle of interference and control and forget Free Will is plain from the Bible and 'many other things you do' from destroying his own creation to destroying the Canaanites for Hebrew living space, to keeping knowledge from Jesus and refusing to hear his plea to be let off crucifixion.

The control is clear, the lack of concern for individual liberties and to hell with Free will is evident. There is no reason why God couldn't intervene by appearing, instructing and even control (1), other than it is all a hoax, there is no god and the Bible is man - made. I have discussed this before and the resultant denial of what what is plain in the Bible and going off into irrelevant tangents was an insult to me and to the people who come here hoping for decent exchanges.

I hope you can do better because I keep responding to you, and that is respect for you, if that hadn't occurred to you.

(1) I can't resist that old Jibe 'if God himself came down, atheists wouldn't believe'. In fact it is the Christians who would not believe - if God said the NT was false, and the Quran was correct. Or Muslims (this was first a Muslim smackdown on atheists) would not accept a god that wasn't Allah. Atheists, after requiring some convincing evidence this was God and not an alien entity exploiting us, would accept whatever god it was.

[POI]

Okay. But in doing so, he sometimes first controls one's mind to control the upcoming wanted conditions.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe He controls minds. To draw someone, it is not necessary to control persons mind.

The act of hardening a person's heart, which is not of the persons own ability, would not then be God controlling the person's mind (in any capacity)?

[The Tanager]

I've shown plenty of support for my position. I cannot help you anymore, if you cannot see it. And it's you, who keeps doubling down on an assumption for which you have no rational reason to make. This is your fault and no one else's. I am now tired of riding the hamster wheel. As with most debates, both parties think they have the right interpretation. I guess the readers can see the exchange for themselves and decide. Either you are right, I'm right, or we are both off.

Yes, absolutely, if I'm wrong, it's my fault and no one else's. The same is true for me as it is for you and everyone when talking about interpretations of a text, the Bible or otherwise. That's why I hope you didn't take my statements to be said out of anger or defensiveness or insult or whatever. I saw your comments as intellectual challenges, not insults. I thank you for sharing your thoughts and allowing me to share mine. I thank you for continuing to challenge your thoughts and the thoughts of Christians like myself. We are all trying to make sense of reality and we can all benefit from each other's thoughts. I hope to see you around on other threads sharing your challenges and insights.

[1213]

The act of hardening a person's heart, which is not of the persons own ability, would not then be God controlling the person's mind (in any capacity)?

If the hardening happens because of changing conditions, I don't think it is mind controlling. For example in the case of pharaoh, his heart hardened when he had to release Jews, or when a plague ended. And when God sent a plague, pharaoh heart softened. It was all only by the conditions.